Do the people of Donetsk and Luhansk have a right to defend themselves against the Banderite regime in Kiev? That’s what the modern war spiraled out from, a Banderite coup spilling into a civil war.
As for state capitalism, I don’t support Singapore or the Republic of Korea. I support socialist market economies and socialist planned economies, as I support socialism in general, and there’s a wide gulf between state capitalism and socialism when it comes to which class is on top.
If you had written this in 2014 or shortly after, I would have agreed, but a lot has happend since then.
And I think we will have to agree to disagree about a self-proclaimed “vanguard” or party functionaries representing the working class in any shape or form.
Sure, a lot has indeed happened. I don’t think it invalidates my question.
Vanguards do not proclaim themselves as such, they become them through popular support from the people. This is not mere tautology, a vanguard cannot succeed in its aims alone, it requires the rest of the proletariat to rally behind it and legitimize it. It cannot be self-legitimizing.
Which question? All people have the right to defend themselves against outside aggression. This obviously includes the people of eastern Ukraine. But the imperial war of aggression by the Russian side has long overshadowed the localized conflict that started around 2014, and by now people that didn’t agree with the Russian occupation are either dead or have fled.
And your argument about the vanguard is on the same logical level as monarchs proclaiming to be loved by their subjects 🙄 Completely circular logic that really no one buys, including people that actually live(d) under such regimes.
Do the people of Donetsk and Luhansk have a right to defend themselves against the Banderite regime in Kiev?
Russia entering the war at the request of the DPR and LPR is an extension of that question, when faced with a regime intent on ethnically cleansing the Donbass region the people of the DPR and LPR extended a request for support.
As for saying vanguard parties deriving their support from the people, I already explained this is not circular. The monarchy was a small class that wielded the power of the feudal state to keep the peasantry in line, and were thus entitled to vast riches.
Vanguard parties are formed from within the working classes, succeed in revolution only through mass revolt, and once taking political power in the hands of the working classes have the same class interests as the rest of the proletariat, that being collectivization of production and distribution in the hands of the socialist state. Administrators are wage laborers, not owners of capital, and thus are not a unique owning class but instead a subsection of the proletariat.
By the time the Russians decided to send actual forces instead of just undercover puppets, there was nothing you could even remotely call “banderite” in power in Kyiv. Because as flawed as the Ukrainian democracy might be, there were actual elections and those right-wing parties that briefly took power after 2014 had long lost it by then.
Those self proclaimed republics also didn’t have real democratic legitimisation nor was there broad support in these regions for asking the Russians to intervene.
The rest of your argument is more circular logic, and nostalgia for regimes propped up by petro-dollars in it’s later years is neither uncommon, nor does it reflect in actual voting behaviour of these very same people today (if they are allowed to vote in free and fair elections).
Do the people of Donetsk and Luhansk have a right to defend themselves against the Banderite regime in Kiev? That’s what the modern war spiraled out from, a Banderite coup spilling into a civil war.
As for state capitalism, I don’t support Singapore or the Republic of Korea. I support socialist market economies and socialist planned economies, as I support socialism in general, and there’s a wide gulf between state capitalism and socialism when it comes to which class is on top.
If you had written this in 2014 or shortly after, I would have agreed, but a lot has happend since then.
And I think we will have to agree to disagree about a self-proclaimed “vanguard” or party functionaries representing the working class in any shape or form.
Sure, a lot has indeed happened. I don’t think it invalidates my question.
Vanguards do not proclaim themselves as such, they become them through popular support from the people. This is not mere tautology, a vanguard cannot succeed in its aims alone, it requires the rest of the proletariat to rally behind it and legitimize it. It cannot be self-legitimizing.
Which question? All people have the right to defend themselves against outside aggression. This obviously includes the people of eastern Ukraine. But the imperial war of aggression by the Russian side has long overshadowed the localized conflict that started around 2014, and by now people that didn’t agree with the Russian occupation are either dead or have fled.
And your argument about the vanguard is on the same logical level as monarchs proclaiming to be loved by their subjects 🙄 Completely circular logic that really no one buys, including people that actually live(d) under such regimes.
I was referring to this question:
Russia entering the war at the request of the DPR and LPR is an extension of that question, when faced with a regime intent on ethnically cleansing the Donbass region the people of the DPR and LPR extended a request for support.
As for saying vanguard parties deriving their support from the people, I already explained this is not circular. The monarchy was a small class that wielded the power of the feudal state to keep the peasantry in line, and were thus entitled to vast riches.
Vanguard parties are formed from within the working classes, succeed in revolution only through mass revolt, and once taking political power in the hands of the working classes have the same class interests as the rest of the proletariat, that being collectivization of production and distribution in the hands of the socialist state. Administrators are wage laborers, not owners of capital, and thus are not a unique owning class but instead a subsection of the proletariat.
It isn’t even true that people living in socialist countries perceive administration as a unique class. The majority of people who lived in Eastern European socialism regret its fall, the broad majority supported their government and played an active role in running society.
By the time the Russians decided to send actual forces instead of just undercover puppets, there was nothing you could even remotely call “banderite” in power in Kyiv. Because as flawed as the Ukrainian democracy might be, there were actual elections and those right-wing parties that briefly took power after 2014 had long lost it by then.
Those self proclaimed republics also didn’t have real democratic legitimisation nor was there broad support in these regions for asking the Russians to intervene.
The rest of your argument is more circular logic, and nostalgia for regimes propped up by petro-dollars in it’s later years is neither uncommon, nor does it reflect in actual voting behaviour of these very same people today (if they are allowed to vote in free and fair elections).