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.
"The basic framework for a diplomatic settlement has long been understood and has been reiterated by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. First, neutralization of Ukraine, providing it with a status rather like Mexico or Austria. Second, putting off the matter of Crimea. Third, arrangements for a high level of autonomy for Donbass, perhaps within a federal arrangement, preferably to be settled in terms of an internationally run referendum."
He later adds that sanctions on Russia and supplying arms to Ukraine "might be justified" if it's done with an eye towards getting Russia to accept a settlement along these lines:
"Returning to the essential point, we should be doing what we can to bring the criminal aggression to an end and doing so in a way that will save Ukrainians from further suffering and even possible obliteration if Putin and his circle are driven to the wall with no way out. That calls for a popular movement that will press the U.S. to reverse its official policy and to join in diplomacy and statecraft. Punitive measures (sanctions, military support for Ukraine) might be justified if they contribute to this end, not if designed to punish Russians while prolonging the agony and threatening Ukraine with destruction, with unspeakable ramifications beyond."
Also if you're suggesting Chomsky adopts a stance of moral purity rather than realistic concessions when it comes to aggression by the U.S. and its allies, I don't think that's true, see for example his comments about Israel and Palestine at https://chomsky.info/20131024/ where he says that while in the long-term he would prefer a binational state (a 'one-state solution'), in the more immediate term he thinks it makes more sense for activists to try to push for a two-state settlement for the pragmatic reason that it's more likely Israel (and the U.S.) could be convinced to go along with this.
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.
Chomsky doesn't say Ukraine should surrender, he argues for a diplomatic settlement that would keep Ukraine independent, see the interview at https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-our-priority-on-ukraine-should-be-saving-lives-not-punishing-russia/ where he says:
"The basic framework for a diplomatic settlement has long been understood and has been reiterated by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. First, neutralization of Ukraine, providing it with a status rather like Mexico or Austria. Second, putting off the matter of Crimea. Third, arrangements for a high level of autonomy for Donbass, perhaps within a federal arrangement, preferably to be settled in terms of an internationally run referendum."
He later adds that sanctions on Russia and supplying arms to Ukraine "might be justified" if it's done with an eye towards getting Russia to accept a settlement along these lines:
"Returning to the essential point, we should be doing what we can to bring the criminal aggression to an end and doing so in a way that will save Ukrainians from further suffering and even possible obliteration if Putin and his circle are driven to the wall with no way out. That calls for a popular movement that will press the U.S. to reverse its official policy and to join in diplomacy and statecraft. Punitive measures (sanctions, military support for Ukraine) might be justified if they contribute to this end, not if designed to punish Russians while prolonging the agony and threatening Ukraine with destruction, with unspeakable ramifications beyond."
Also if you're suggesting Chomsky adopts a stance of moral purity rather than realistic concessions when it comes to aggression by the U.S. and its allies, I don't think that's true, see for example his comments about Israel and Palestine at https://chomsky.info/20131024/ where he says that while in the long-term he would prefer a binational state (a 'one-state solution'), in the more immediate term he thinks it makes more sense for activists to try to push for a two-state settlement for the pragmatic reason that it's more likely Israel (and the U.S.) could be convinced to go along with this.
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.
yes thanks, fixed
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"