Bravo. But I fear your appeal for Burgis and his ilk to plainly state their position won't get a lot of traction in their neighborhood. They really do seem lost in this situation. Chomsky, bless him, is now resorting to "that's the way the world works" to defend the position that Ukraine should surrender to Russian domination. Don't recall him ever responding to US aggression with "that's the way the world works."
Anyway, a crackerjack piece of historical correction and good journalism on your part.
Not just a good smackdown of Jacobin (always a public service), but also an illuminating glimpse of the real Marx and his milieu, supported by his own words. Excellent work.
Did something get muddled here?
"[Burgis says we should] focus on humanitarian aid, promote peace negotiations, and admit refugees. I agree we should do the second [negotiations] and third [refugees], but peace negotiations happen because...."
Strikes me that might have made more sense if you agreed we should do the 1st (aid) and the 3rd (refugees) but you have caveats about the second (negotiations).
If I lost the thread there, then don't waste time on me -- I write in the hopes of helping.
I think the key underlying issue is that Marx really believed that the movement he was a part of was genuinely in the process of liberating the workers of the world, and that even bourgeois revolutions had a part to play in that. Today, that level of belief in the future of our own causes is very hard to find, and thus we end up with people like Burgis who don't want to help the Ukrainians because strengthening the West is worse. If you instead think that the cause of socialism and national liberation is going to sweep the world, defeating Russia is obviously a part of that. If you think all we have is a rearguard action against the inevitable hegemony of neoliberalism then all manner of bad things can be concluded.
I wish some of the anti-war critics would engage with actual historical pacifists and pacifist thought. There's rich though and literature from people who had to resist subjugation and chose pacifism: use them. Instead, they do the nonsense you pointed out
Bravo. But I fear your appeal for Burgis and his ilk to plainly state their position won't get a lot of traction in their neighborhood. They really do seem lost in this situation. Chomsky, bless him, is now resorting to "that's the way the world works" to defend the position that Ukraine should surrender to Russian domination. Don't recall him ever responding to US aggression with "that's the way the world works."
Anyway, a crackerjack piece of historical correction and good journalism on your part.
Not just a good smackdown of Jacobin (always a public service), but also an illuminating glimpse of the real Marx and his milieu, supported by his own words. Excellent work.
Did something get muddled here?
"[Burgis says we should] focus on humanitarian aid, promote peace negotiations, and admit refugees. I agree we should do the second [negotiations] and third [refugees], but peace negotiations happen because...."
Strikes me that might have made more sense if you agreed we should do the 1st (aid) and the 3rd (refugees) but you have caveats about the second (negotiations).
If I lost the thread there, then don't waste time on me -- I write in the hopes of helping.
I think the key underlying issue is that Marx really believed that the movement he was a part of was genuinely in the process of liberating the workers of the world, and that even bourgeois revolutions had a part to play in that. Today, that level of belief in the future of our own causes is very hard to find, and thus we end up with people like Burgis who don't want to help the Ukrainians because strengthening the West is worse. If you instead think that the cause of socialism and national liberation is going to sweep the world, defeating Russia is obviously a part of that. If you think all we have is a rearguard action against the inevitable hegemony of neoliberalism then all manner of bad things can be concluded.
I wish some of the anti-war critics would engage with actual historical pacifists and pacifist thought. There's rich though and literature from people who had to resist subjugation and chose pacifism: use them. Instead, they do the nonsense you pointed out
Bravo
One of my favorite lines in “A Game of Thrones” is Brynden Blackfish opposing peace on Catelyn Stark’s terms:
“Peace…peace is sweet my lady. But what is the point of exchanging your sword for a plowshare if you needs forge it again on the morrow?”
An unjust peace which results in Russia subjugation of Ukraine is no peace.
very much enjoyed this- minor correction should be Marx "As Kevin B. Anderson writes in March at the Margins"