====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Posted in direct response to the Tahrir-ICN article in the subject line cited by Louis (with typos corrected): http://tahriricn.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/ukraine-excuse-me-mister-how-far-is-it-from-simferopol-to-grozny/ I can only agree with the moral thrust of articles such as this. It is important to combat the recrudescence of (for lack of a better word, since the phenomenon is broader than this) “neo-Stalinism”, this time though, rubbing shoulders directly with conscious reactionaries of the most retrograde sort. The photo of Zizek was particularly repulsive, especially considering his latest article on Ukraine, which was not bad for Zizek, except that he too ends it with a rejection of geo-political (and I would add, economic) analysis as (I paraphrase) “having nothing to do with liberatory projects”. Dovetailing therefore with the apparent thrust of this article, on the same question! Hence agreement here comes with a critical conditional: Is ALL geopolitical analysis “obtuse geopolitical analysis”? When is it not “obtuse”? IOW, what is the place of objective geo-political and economic analysis in a revolutionary movement? I have been raising this issue consistently for some time since it emerged with the Libyan and Syrian Arab Springs, and unfortunately the issue has become rather glaring with respect to Ukraine events. The issue is the general abandonment of ANY substantial perspective on US or EU imperialism. Attempts to raise a perspective on this in context are met with varying degrees of irritation or dismissal by those whose perspective is completely aligned with this article., At best it may be met with homilies about how we all agree that US/EU imperialism is of course “bad”, lets move on. Or that all imperialisms are “the same”, equally bad, which is false on its face. This silence has been particularly egregious with respect to Ukraine, “having observed a stubborn refusal to acknowledge”, or make substantial sense of, very clear evidence of direct intervention of US and EU imperialism, both over the long term and more immediately. US intervention in particular is intimately bound up with the role of the fascists, in creating an unintended stage for the fascists to act. In an aside, it must be pointed out that the fascists or far right alone did not “lead” Maidan; it is led by the *broad right*, from neoliberals/neocons all the way to the actual fascists forming a defacto, if unintended, bloc (because the fascist role IS an embarrassment to the US/EU imperialists, if not to Putin). I really, honestly don’t understand this attitude. My best explanation is that some do not want to “resemble” our troglodyte opponents, fear of mixing banners and so forth. These are legitimate practical political concerns – we DON’T want to mix our banners with them. But we won’t avoid doing so by abandoning geo-political analysis – to them! Instead, we need to appropriate such analysis FROM their control, and render it, precisely, non-obtuse, by converting it into a guide to show the way to a real concrete solidarity, beyond abstract moral stances, with the revolutions, uprisings and mass movements taking place outside our own countries. After all, how can we feel shame at our privileges, and at our own historic failures that have in fact left the Arab Spring and the people of Ukraine in the lurch, and at the same time, refuse to criticize, in concrete relation to events, the very imperialism that is the objective basis of those very same privileges and failures??? Do you see the problem here? Sincerely -Matt ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
