However, Marxists know better.
A Materialist Understanding of Human Rights
Human rights discourse today is largely grounded in value judgments, and this has the effect of disguising the class interests behind human rights. Rather than human rights being progressively developed and expanded as a result of enlightenment, discussion, and liberal thought, the idea and implementation of human rights has been embedded in the class relations of the societies. Class, rather than constitutions, are the driving force behind the expansion and retraction of political advocacy rights.
The level of domestic and international threats to the ruling class of a country and other factors determine the level of political advocacy rights allowed. Throughout history, the class factors are the only consistent measure of political advocacy rights. For reasons of space, I'm just going to link an old post that lists these factors:
http://malheureuxmarxist.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/a-materialist-analysis-of-human-rights/
The Outcomes of Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism always results in an increase of homophobia, racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry. The Lancet found that neoliberal reforms caused the deaths of 1 million working age men, a 12.8% increase in deaths, and a 56% increase in unemployment in Russia and Eastern Europe. The so-called freedoms that neoliberal movements bring (press, assembly, and speech) aren't real freedoms at all, as the society becomes controlled by international financiers, media moguls, and foreign business magnates. The press becomes a mouthpiece for the wealthy, rights to assemble are respected only as long as they don't present a threat to the neoliberal order, and speech gets ignored if it doesn't support the new ruling class of foreign capitalists and their intermediaries.
This is why Marxists have to focus on real freedoms, not formal freedoms.
The Opposition in Belarus
Understanding the opposition in Belarus is critical to understanding whether it should be supported or opposed. If it is a movement to implement neoliberalism, then we understand that its calls for political advocacy rights are simply a mask to implement neoliberalism.
First, let's look at which countries are funding the opposition:
The U.S. said it would boost funding for Belarus civic groups by 30% to about $15 million this year. Poland said it would roughly double assistance to more than $14.8 million, while the EU said its aid would quadruple to $21 million.
Now, let's look at which neoliberal "philanthropists" funded the opposition:
http://www.sorostrading.com/art7_12_97.html
In Central Europe alone, he spent more than $123 million between 1989 and 1994 trying to help democracy take root -- roughly five times the sum spent by the United States Government's chief democracy-promoting foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy.
Unlike United States Government development aid, about 80 percent of which is given to American contractors and consultants, most money Mr. Soros distributes is given quickly and with few strings to local groups and individuals, says Thomas Carothers, a former State Department lawyer at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, because local activists are less expensive and more efficient at spreading the democratic, free-market mantra.
Now, it could be possible that the EU, neoliberal billionaires, and the US are all being manipulated, so let's look at what the opposition is calling for:
http://charter97.org/en/news/2012/4/17/50908/
Belarus is in urgent need of modernization. In the economic freedom ratings by Freedom House, Belarus is on the 42nd place. Reform deadlock, high prices, no perspectives for the young, a very weak flow of investments. The state capitalism leads to corruption, people’s purses are getting thinner. This controlled, “tamed” economy will sooner or later lead to a grave crisis. Market economy, in its turn, helps establish a free state.
Anyone who is critical of capitalism should have alarm bells going off in their head. They're calling for the same untamed, unrestrained capitalism that resulted in the deaths of 1 million working-age men in the ex-USSR countries, cloaking it in the language of democracy and freedom.
My view is that most of the footsoldiers of the opposition don't want neoliberalism. Just like how 2/3 of Poland's Solidarity movement wanted democratic socialism, they're being used as pawns to implement neoliberalism. When we analyze these kinds of movements, we can't just look at what the people in the movement want, we have to analyze larger class forces and see which groups will be able to profit off of instability.
A victory for the opposition will undoubtedly be a victory for neoliberalism. History shows that a victory for neoliberalism in peripheral European countries doesn't result in greater rights for ordinary people, but greater rights for foreign capitalists. The ability for women to get jobs will depend on their bust size. The ability for the elderly to pay their heating bill will depend on how much money they get from their children and grandchildren.
Neoliberalism means the annihilation of living with dignity. It means the annihilation of living securely. It means the annihilation of Belarus's assistance to other independent nationalist countries like Venezuela.
History of Belarus
Due to length, I will only be linking articles on the history of Belarus. These articles give an in-depth examination of the class forces in Belarus, and why there is a coalition of neoliberal forces across the globe targeting Belarus.
http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5179&news_iv_ctrl=1322
http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/belarus-under-siege-joint-onslaught-by-us-and-russian-oligarchs/
Belarus is targeted because it went against the World Bank, the IMF, and the EU and charted an independent course for itself. It shunned privatization and serves as a reminder that Europe has more options for development than foreign neoliberal domination.
Surrounded by the devastation of neoliberal policies in Eastern Europe, Belarus is a strong symbol that fighting neoliberalism works.
Marxists should support bourgeois nationalism against imperialist subjugation
Understanding the primary and secondary contradictions is incredibly important. There's an incredibly thorough and excellent essay written about this, and I encourage everyone to read it. Here's some excerpts:
http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/marxism-bourgeois-nationalism/
I posit these theses:
Because of their relation to imperialism after the fall of the socialist bloc, the objective historical position of nationalist states in the Third World is progressive.
Marxist-Leninists must uphold the right of nations to self-determination, which in the present is principally characterized by freedom from imperialist subjugation.
Where it arises, Marxist-Leninists must support genuine revolutionary proletarian struggles for socialism against bourgeois nationalist governments.
It’s paramount that Marxist-Leninists, in light of Iraq, Libya, and increasing aggression towards Syria, comfortably identify anti-imperialism as the primary contradiction facing the international proletarian revolution today.
Proletarian internationalism is superior in every way to bourgeois nationalism, but so long as neo-colonialism and imperialism exist, communists must unite all who can be united in the anti-imperialist struggle. Simultaneously, though, communists must remember the other side of the dialectic: When bourgeois nationalists become complicit partners in Western imperialism and alienate themselves from the masses, communists must never hesitate to overthrow that state with extreme prejudice and on its ruins erect revolutionary socialism.
When a nation achieves self-determination, the secondary contradiction between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie will ascend to the forefront as the new primary contradiction. Before that time, however, the primary contradiction facing the masses in oppressed nations is between imperialism and national liberation. In bourgeois nationalist states, this contradiction can and must draw in all who can be united to strike a blow against imperialism.
Under imperialist subjugation, the only human rights enacted are those that support the continued domination by metropolitan countries. The fight for self-determination, the fight for freedom from imperialist control, is the principal contradiction today.
pogfan1996 posted:Marxists should support bourgeois nationalism against imperialist subjugation
Agreed, Free Tibet.
pogfan1996 posted:Marxists should support bourgeois nationalism against imperialist subjugation
Agreed, vote Golden Dawn.
the principal contradiction applies within a social field and is ontological. it is not something that you say "hey that seems important" or something, it's supposed to be scientific and fixed. for the entire capitalist period it is, at a global level, between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. it can't be between nations because the masses alone make history. at the level of china it can have a national character within the war against japan but this is still primarily a class struggle. it is not "china versus japan" but "the patriotic national bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeoisie, the poor peasantry and the proletariat" against the japanese. and, very importantly, as soon as that contradiction is resolved then it becomes something else, intensifying class struggle, since one divides into two. that's why mao argued against the new bourgeoisie in the party, rather than calling for class collaborationism within china to preserve unity against the west.
but you can't sublimate that to the level of states globally. it doesn't make sense because there is uneven development within those states and between them. for example, similar arguments are made nowadays with regard to contemporary china. contemporary china has a large state sector, most credit is socialized, there is rough national planning/coordination for major state investment, foreign investment is regulated, most workers are considered unionized, the state considers itself socialist, it operates itself in a largely marxist-leninist state system, etc. it's export growth, likewise, is arguably to the benefit of china and is still shaped within state structures.
but obviously in a pseudo-lin biaoist view of trade then contemporary china can't be considered a progressive country because it exports and allows foreign investment. but that seems like a bizarre argument because china has a large amount of policy autonomy. the problem within china is not a foreign exploiter so much as domestic capitalism and the lack of social programs and redistribution. beyond that, some academics make the point that exports to the US have been a bit of a dramatic sideshow, and that the massive internal and regional market is obviously important.
now beyond that, when people like althusser argue for a theoretical anti-humanism, the key word there is theoretical. that means that at the level of social study and political consideration we should not expect people to become socialists just because of enlightenment about rights and such, but rather self-interest within mass movements. but that doesn't mean we have to oppose human rights per se. it just says that they alone won't build socialism. althusser was critical of stalinism as a phenomenon.
getfiscal posted:how is this not class collaborationism? you're saying you support a capitalist government on the principle that it's the lesser evil in a situation and might deny your enemies something. that's pretty tenuous. it might be fine as a pragmatic thing but it has nothing to do with the principal contradiction and all that.
the principal contradiction applies within a social field and is ontological. it is not something that you say "hey that seems important" or something, it's supposed to be scientific and fixed. for the entire capitalist period it is, at a global level, between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. it can't be between nations because the masses alone make history. at the level of china it can have a national character within the war against japan but this is still primarily a class struggle. it is not "china versus japan" but "the patriotic national bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeoisie, the poor peasantry and the proletariat" against the japanese. and, very importantly, as soon as that contradiction is resolved then it becomes something else, intensifying class struggle, since one divides into two. that's why mao argued against the new bourgeoisie in the party, rather than calling for class collaborationism within china to preserve unity against the west.
but you can't sublimate that to the level of states globally. it doesn't make sense because there is uneven development within those states and between them. for example, similar arguments are made nowadays with regard to contemporary china. contemporary china has a large state sector, most credit is socialized, there is rough national planning/coordination for major state investment, foreign investment is regulated, most workers are considered unionized, the state considers itself socialist, it operates itself in a largely marxist-leninist state system, etc. it's export growth, likewise, is arguably to the benefit of china and is still shaped within state structures.
but obviously in a pseudo-lin biaoist view of trade then contemporary china can't be considered a progressive country because it exports and allows foreign investment. but that seems like a bizarre argument because china has a large amount of policy autonomy. the problem within china is not a foreign exploiter so much as domestic capitalism and the lack of social programs and redistribution. beyond that, some academics make the point that exports to the US have been a bit of a dramatic sideshow, and that the massive internal and regional market is obviously important.
now beyond that, when people like althusser argue for a theoretical anti-humanism, the key word there is theoretical. that means that at the level of social study and political consideration we should not expect people to become socialists just because of enlightenment about rights and such, but rather self-interest within mass movements. but that doesn't mean we have to oppose human rights per se. it just says that they alone won't build socialism. althusser was critical of stalinism as a phenomenon.
However, Marxists know better.
littlegreenpills posted:i never really got what marx meant by a "contradiction"
it's more from mao, not from marx himself, and in reality it is a nonsense term used to fix all social conflict into a particular dimension that the person using the term cares most about.
The separation between humanitarianism and politics that we are experiencing today is the extreme phase of the separation of the rights of man from the rights of the citizen. In the final analysis, however, humanitarian organizations-which today are more and more supported by international commissions-can only grasp human life in the figure of bare or sacred life, and therefore, despite themselves, maintain a secret solidarity with the very powers they ought to fight. It takes only a glance at the recent publicity campaigns to gather funds for refugees from Rwanda to realize that here human life is exclusively considered (and there are certainly good reasons for this) as sacred life-which is to say, as life that can be killed but not sacrificed-and that only as such is it made into the object of aid and protection. The "imploring eyes" of the Rwandan child, whose photograph is shown to obtain money but who "is now becoming more and more difficult to find alive," may well be the most telling contemporary cipher of the bare life that humanitarian organizations, in perfect symmetry with state power, need. A humanitarianism separated from politics cannot fail to reproduce the isolation of sacred life at the basis of sovereignty, and the camp-which is to say, the pure space of exception-is the biopolitical paradigm that it cannot master.
Giorgio Agamben
getfiscal posted:how is this not class collaborationism? you're saying you support a capitalist government on the principle that it's the lesser evil in a situation and might deny your enemies something. that's pretty tenuous. it might be fine as a pragmatic thing but it has nothing to do with the principal contradiction and all that.
the principal contradiction applies within a social field and is ontological. it is not something that you say "hey that seems important" or something, it's supposed to be scientific and fixed. for the entire capitalist period it is, at a global level, between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. it can't be between nations because the masses alone make history. at the level of china it can have a national character within the war against japan but this is still primarily a class struggle. it is not "china versus japan" but "the patriotic national bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeoisie, the poor peasantry and the proletariat" against the japanese. and, very importantly, as soon as that contradiction is resolved then it becomes something else, intensifying class struggle, since one divides into two. that's why mao argued against the new bourgeoisie in the party, rather than calling for class collaborationism within china to preserve unity against the west.
but you can't sublimate that to the level of states globally. it doesn't make sense because there is uneven development within those states and between them. for example, similar arguments are made nowadays with regard to contemporary china. contemporary china has a large state sector, most credit is socialized, there is rough national planning/coordination for major state investment, foreign investment is regulated, most workers are considered unionized, the state considers itself socialist, it operates itself in a largely marxist-leninist state system, etc. it's export growth, likewise, is arguably to the benefit of china and is still shaped within state structures.
but obviously in a pseudo-lin biaoist view of trade then contemporary china can't be considered a progressive country because it exports and allows foreign investment. but that seems like a bizarre argument because china has a large amount of policy autonomy. the problem within china is not a foreign exploiter so much as domestic capitalism and the lack of social programs and redistribution. beyond that, some academics make the point that exports to the US have been a bit of a dramatic sideshow, and that the massive internal and regional market is obviously important.
now beyond that, when people like althusser argue for a theoretical anti-humanism, the key word there is theoretical. that means that at the level of social study and political consideration we should not expect people to become socialists just because of enlightenment about rights and such, but rather self-interest within mass movements. but that doesn't mean we have to oppose human rights per se. it just says that they alone won't build socialism. althusser was critical of stalinism as a phenomenon.
w/r/t class collaborationism, we need to recognize that the workers aren't ready to take power in Belarus. this is why a comparison to China isn't really useful, because at that time, the CCP had already managed entire districts and the peasants and proletariat were on the path to taking a leadership role in society.
it isn't a matter of it being a lesser evil in moral terms, it is the difference between a reactionary government and a progressive one.
the gains from supporting independent nationalist states like belarus aren't tenuous, they're a critical building block to creating an environment that encourages socialist movements to take power. the reason the maoists in nepal didn't immediately try for a New Democracy-ish kind of thing is because they didn't think they would get the international support necessary to resist imperialism.
countries like belarus, syria, and iran have given really critical help for laying the groundwork for the construction of socialism in Venezuela:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/02/belarus-and-venezuela-building-the-multi-polar-world/
the first world left that attacks belarus is guilty of class collaborationism, because they're encouraging the destruction of progressive governments for tenuous political advocacy gains. we all know that freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of association aren't real freedoms under capitalism, but the first world left tends to forget this when it comes to other countries. they apply marxism to their own countries, but liberalism to countries the US and EU hate.
i'm not against human rights or political advocacy rights, they're just a result of the security of the ruling class. liking them or disliking them doesn't really make analyzing them any clearer, they're extended or retracted based on how well they secure the rule of the ruling class.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:pogfan1996 posted:Marxists should support bourgeois nationalism against imperialist subjugation
Agreed, vote Golden Dawn.
agreed
Francisco_Danconia posted:yeah i have no beef with fiskers except insofar as "i don't think you understand, it's capitalist" has become the universal shorthand for "i know nothing about this particular situation, but i definitely don't want to think about its geopolitical position in the larger struggle between world liberal domination and everything else, or why it might have the position it does"
well i used china as my example because i know a bit about it. also i don't think you can explain the constant failure of socialist states without reference to their economic models tending towards capitalist restoration and without blaming it on a small minority.
getfiscal posted:Francisco_Danconia posted:yeah i have no beef with fiskers except insofar as "i don't think you understand, it's capitalist" has become the universal shorthand for "i know nothing about this particular situation, but i definitely don't want to think about its geopolitical position in the larger struggle between world liberal domination and everything else, or why it might have the position it does"
well i used china as my example because i know a bit about it. also i don't think you can explain the constant failure of socialist states without reference to their economic models tending towards capitalist restoration and without blaming it on a small minority.
i'm sure you do, and again, i have no beef with you because we simply have different criteria for what's capitalism and what's socialism, and because if i'm not mistaken you're just not really much of a socialist anyway
the problem is the idealized socialism some people who've been using your definitions are placing above general "anti-imperialism" or whatever
fwiw, my position tends to be that organizational structures that would have during the cold war been called social-democratic or non-aligned take so much more work and planning to preserve nowadays (we couldn't even have a degaulle these days, or a galtieri, even if being castro has always been this hard) that they either sell out entirely or end up on the wrong side of empire, an experience which tends to radicalize them further and push them into the arms of similar projects because nobody else will have them, a Good Thing; as a result, these projects form a fairly cohesive group, backed by china, that is generally moderate-socialist in form, for which i don't really think "bourgeois nationalism" is the right term because the bourgeoisie is by nature international
Edited by Francisco_Danconia ()
in the end, i think you need both types of things nowadays. they help each other out.
Francisco_Danconia posted:death is certain. fuck this gay earth
now that we can agree on!
*audience laughs, sporadic applause*
I don’t understand how China is a counterweight to imperialism in any real sense. The sorta-Maoist formula that pogfan is using depends on flows of values from production workers to the centers of capital such as the US. So obviously China is “open for business” with the US and there are flows of value (in this model) from the Chinese proletariat to American capital and consumers. So in that model, China is exploited by imperialism, China is not anti-imperialist. This is why almost all contemporary Maoists (that aren’t Dengists) consider China to be revisionist and capitalist.
Beyond that, China has a market economy where capital buys wage-labour from workers and uses it to produce commodities for sale on a market in order to gain more money than was ventured in the project. That is the circulation of capital. That’s the classic Marxist definition of capitalism. A socialist economy produces for use. It might have prices but they are set according to some politically determined value and do not fund the enterprise. The problem with this model is that it is terribly difficult to put into practice. That is why all countries that had this socialist model abandoned it after their first major socialist leader died, if they ever had it at all.
I don’t have a problem saying that, say, Cuba is a socialist country in a non-Marxist/non-technical sense. I would also defend Cuba against an invasion or something like that. The idea that I supported the attack on Libya is wrong. I repeatedly criticized Canada’s NDP for backing the idea of a No-Fly Zone. I’ve also criticized Trotskyists in Canada for giving largely uncritical support to the opposition in Syria. Not that it matters much what one person thinks on any given thing: “The masses, and the masses alone, make history.” Even then, it’s not like just because I’m critical of something means that I wouldn’t cooperate with it in some respects. I lived in China for a short period, ostensibly to study the economy, and I would like to live there again one day. Likewise, I would love to live in Cuba, one of my fantasy jobs would be working for a state planning or banking organ. The idea I want these countries attacked or to suffer from imperialism or something seems odd
I do think of myself as a socialist but it extends more from values. I think that free cooperation of persons on terms of equality and without subordination is the central possible uniting value. I think that the best way to make that happen is through deeply participatory socialism. I think that democracy is a major part of that. More importantly, I don’t think that’s just “liking good things” or whatever, I think it is pretty central to the basic operation of socialism. The complexity of planning is so extreme that it requires widespread goodwill and deep participation. This is part of why existing socialist states failed. I think there is also a general sense of this among the population of most countries, which is why no country in the world ever consistently elects politicians that want a fully planned economy tomorrow. All regions with elected socialist-oriented governments have always maintained a market framework. Attempts to push beyond markets in the short-term were only done by a handful of dictators and were, as I said, always partially implemented and quickly undone.
On that note, I don’t think my personal interest is in championing this or that model. My interest is in finding a way to be useful to society. I think that society will probably move this or that way regardless of what I do. So I’m trying to think through my own values and see how I can do something that fits them given my (dis)abilities. Personally I think that involves some sort of economic work related to coordination of the economy. As I said, my fantasy job is working for a state planning or banking office. I think that sector will grow as we try to figure out how to recover from ongoing financialization. More realistically I might end up with pretty simplistic work just to get by for a while. Anyway there’s my earnest post for the day.
pogfan1996 posted:However, Marxists know better.
the problem is, they don't act like it.
i will never shake the vivid memory from my mind, of when the cia backed civil war occurred in libya. many marxists and leftists would condemn and oppose nato involvement, but out of the other side of their mouth proclaim "well... he isn't a real communist, he has blood on his hands!" and implicitly lend ideological support for regime change.
the left is vehemently anti-imperialism--that is until an actual war occurs. then there are always caveats, an addendum added to their position.
i call it the no true marxman phenomenon: identifying as a marxist & global revolutionary, while simultaneously attempting to maintain western hegemonic imperialism
Edited by AmericanNazbro ()
Maoists (that aren’t Dengists)
is this name taken yet for a groupuscule
AmericanNazbro posted:pogfan1996 posted:
However, Marxists know better.
the problem is, they don't act like it.
i will never shake the vivid memory from my mind, of when the cia backed civil war occurred in libya. many marxists and leftists would condemn and oppose nato involvement, but out of the other side of their mouth proclaim "well... he isn't a real communist, he has blood on his hands!" and implicitly lend ideological support for regime change.
Maybe people are just distressed at the idea of war and not everyone sees the need to sperg their views into a political framework.
This was the same problem that came up in the porn thread. People who are interested in politics simply cannot abide by the idea that not everyone cares as much about it or indeeds sees the world in the same way that they do.
