Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Mark Hayes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Hayes. Show all posts
Mark Hayes ✍ I was recently asked by TPQ to consider writing something about the future of Irish Republicanism. 

Although this sounded like an interesting brief, I was not sure whether I was able to make a meaningful contribution because Republicanism has been the subject of so much debate, discussion and acrimony. Nevertheless, a personal experience recently has reinforced a particular point that I believe is worth reiterating to Republican activists. So, if you have enough patience and are willing to indulge me, I shall make my observation via a more circuitous route.

I recently attended a conference on Marxism in London, organised by the SWP. I am not a member of the SWP, but I wanted to listen to Noam Chomsky, whose work on US foreign policy I have always admired. Unfortunately, he had to cancel due to illness. I was, therefore left with time to spare and found myself rummaging through a variety of books of varying interest to me. Unfortunately, I came across a book entitled Say it Loud! edited by Brian Richardson which had a chapter in it by Weyman Bennett, evidently the SWP’s resident expert on all things anti-racist. Bennett’s contribution was entitled “Beating back the fascist threat”. In his contribution he said this about AFA (in the 1980s):

Anti-Fascist Action (AFA) drew the conclusion from the rise of the BNP that white workers are racist and have no role to play in the struggle against the Nazis”, indeed AFA “relied on a small group of fighters to confront the fascists” and “small groups of people attacking Nazis have never smashed them.

Now this is something upon which I can claim to have some knowledge, having been an active member of AFA (I have also published widely in this area, which is less relevant). Bennett’s comments are nothing more than a grotesque distortion of what actually happened in that period. Indeed, we might adapt and apply an old aphorism to Weyman Bennett: it is better to stay silent and appear to be a fool – rather than publishing bollix, thereby removing all possible doubt!

Let me explain. AFA was one of the very few left-wing organisations that was absolutely rooted in working class communities in Britain, and the idea that we assumed the white working class was racist is little short of absurd. In fact, several of our key members were ex-fascist (NF/BNP etc) - why would we try to win them over if we assumed the class was irredeemably racist? It’s nonsense.

Moreover, AFA could point to significant successes against the Fascists. We drove them from the streets in the 1980s and 1990s. I know this, not just because I was there, but because I had access, via a sympathetic intermediary based in Bradford, to BNP and C18 internal documentation. I saw the minutes and the policy documents and the only anti-fascist organisation that genuinely concerned (even horrified) them was AFA (particularly Red Action). Indeed, I vividly remember reading a crucial strategy document written by Nick Griffin and Tony Lecomber, and the phraseology remains embedded in my consciousness: “no more meetings, marches or punch ups”, and “there is no virtue in fighting drunken red Fenians”. What they really meant was that there was no victory in it (and, by the way, we were never drunk!). They quit, as a consequence of the pressure we applied on them, which was relentless and occasionally ruthless. There is no need to take my word for it – read the autobiographies of ex-fascists like Matthew Collins. Take as evidence the words of Joe Pearse, one of the most prominent fascist activists of his generation:

We definitely treated AFA and Red Action with the respect that their physical presence demanded. They were largely working-class men who could handle themselves. My friend Ian Stuart, of Skrewdriver fame, was ambushed and beaten badly by Red Action, and I recall street fights during the Greenwich election campaign in the mid-eighties with AFA members, and one hell of an explosion of violence at a public election meeting at which I was the candidate. 

He goes on:

As for the ANL/SWP, they were wimps! I remember at Turnpike Lane about a dozen of us standing our ground as hundreds of SWP ran toward us. They stopped about 30 yards before they got to us and none of them had the courage to come closer. The odds had to be ten to one.

Socialist sectarians like Bennett should reflect very carefully on such words before disparaging fellow anti-fascists in public. Bennett, with his ill-considered, factually incorrect, and bizarre intervention, has achieved absolutely nothing apart from sawing off the branch he was sitting on. AFA denied the BNP and C18 public space and restricted their capacity to “control the streets”, which Hitler and the Nazis knew was a precondition for their political success. The fact is that our little outfit did a lot of the “heavy lifting” in those years. Bennett either knows this and is lying in the service of his own organisation(s), or he doesn’t know it and should therefore not be considered an authority on the subject.

The difference between Bennett and myself is that I am fully prepared to acknowledge the complicated nature of this period and the important contribution of other groups in the process of confronting Fascism. Bennett cannot accept this complexity because it would undermine his messianic commitment to a particular organisation and strategy. However, it is worth noting that the obfuscation that results from doing AFA such a grave disservice, does not augur well for the contemporary struggle against the re-emergence of the fascist menace. Fortunately, facts have the stubborn characteristic of remaining facts, whether they are believed or not.

I want to use this particular and very personal example to illustrate a very basic point about the nature of Republicanism. When it comes to the “interpretation” of history, certain red lines should not be crossed – if we allow the record to be reconfigured in the service of a particular political organisation or party, we will lose the very essence of reality. In this regard Republicans need to fasten themselves securely to the mast of truth in order to survive the blizzard of revisionism that has taken place in recent years. At this point it is worth quoting Marx who said (I’m paraphrasing) “I have principles, but if you don’t like them, I have others”! That was, of course, Groucho (not Karl) but it accurately describes the political trajectory of Sinn Fein in recent years. 

The truth is that Republicanism was/is not (only or primarily) about civil rights for Catholics, nor was it a means of enhancing Nationalist ethnic identity. Despite Sinn Fein’s ideological contortions, Republicanism was always about securing a united, independent Ireland. Sinn Fein have, in effect, been deploying a tawdry post-modern technique which emphasises that there is no meta-narrative and no definitive truth – so you can simply make it up! Clearly, Shinners who bend the knee to British Royalty cannot, in any serious sense, be considered as ideological Republicans.

Genuine Republicans know the truth. Bobby Sands did not die for cross-border cooperation, power-sharing in Stormont, or more Catholic entrepreneurs. Consequently, I urge all Republicans to guard their history very carefully. This means telling your own truth, via TPQ and elsewhere, because if you do not engage in the struggle to reclaim historical reality, others will do so on your behalf and they will, in the process, disarm you politically. The future of Republicanism depends on the success of this endeavour.

⏭ Mark Hayes has published widely on a variety of subjects. He is a republican and a Marxist, unapologetic on both counts.

A Note On The Future Of Irish Republicanism Via A Personal Digression On Anti-Fascism

Paul Aylward ☭ I found the discussion between Anthony McIntyre and Mark Hayes both interesting and at times frustrating. 

As someone on the Left who supports neither ‘side’ in the Ukraine Russia conflict please accept the following commentary.

As was clear in this discussion what we on the Left can all be agreed on is that this war needs to stop immediately as thousands of innocent civilians are suffering. This needs to be stated upfront as does the acknowledgement that Putin is a gangster and the Ukrainian Government has embraced Neo-Nazi influences into its fabric and that both countries have the status as being the most corrupt of all European countries. However, while conceding this was a textual exchange rather than academic writing as such, I have some big issues with McIntyre’s argument as presented, which I found deontological and quite simplistic.

While I disagree with a lot of what was asserted around the nature of Communism and the equating of the Holocaust with Holodomor, I want to take specific issue with the arguments purported by McIntyre as to reasons why the Left should support the Ukrainian Government in this conflict. Particularly that that invasion, as the ‘supreme international crime’ (a term repeatedly invoked) trumps all other considerations and effectively renders further analysis of the context and circumstances of the invasion superfluous. In relation to this McIntyre also appears to assert amongst other things that unless you support the Ukraine politically and support the provision of weaponry to them, then you are not part of the ‘progressive Left’. This effectively ‘wedges’ the Left into choosing a ‘side’. There are however some important points which need to be made.

Firstly, that State sanctioned Neo Nazi violence has been inflicted on ethnic Russians in the Ukraine for years prior to Russia’s military intervention is incontrovertible. Atrocities have been committed during the eight-year war prior to the invasion in the Donbass region that has resulted in 14,000 deaths and the displacement of 1.5 million people (mostly ethnic Russians). Coupled with the implementation of repressive ethnic based legislation, (and notwithstanding atrocities have been committed on both sides) there is clear evidence that ethnic Russians within the Ukraine (half a million of whom were Russian citizens) were being oppressed by Ukrainian Government sanctioned forces prior to Russian invasion. If as McIntyre rightly asserts, the Left should support the oppressed, then this at the very least throws doubt on the use of this criteria as a justification for supporting the Ukraine Government. McIntyre can understandably assert that he supports the Ukrainian people, but they are not the ones receiving the anti-tank missiles and rocket launchers from the West. Notwithstanding this, there is also a legal argument for the invasion under International Law (see Daniel Kovalik, University of Pittsburgh’s invocation of article 51 of the UN Charter). Whether you accept the invasion as legitimate or not, the treatment of ethnic Russians within Ukraine borders should not be simply dismissed as Putin PR or propaganda in order to allow the selection of which oppressed people the Left should ‘side’ with.

Secondly, one cannot understand the reasons for the invasion without taking proper account of Russian security concerns, namely the potential prospect of U.S. troops being based along their border in the event of Ukraine being successfully admitted to NATO. On the one hand, the Ukraine has long been seen as a protective buffer between Russia and the West and on the other the US has a long-standing commitment to destabilising Russia (hence their influence within Ukraine) and to removing Putin from power. This kind of interference has been a characteristic US foreign policy strategy applied to a range of other ‘Communist’ and other States including Cuba which coupled with military threats and actions has paradoxically promoted authoritarianism as a mechanism for their survival. In terms of the ‘supreme international crime’ it is again incontestable that the US has been by far the biggest culprits since World War 2 and have conducted numerous ‘proxy’ wars throughout the globe. Incidentally, if Scott Ritter is critical of the US it is because he has particular insights and experiences of its despicable foreign policy. Given there is also convincing evidence of US involvement in the Donbass war, it is particularly disturbing that McIntyre effectively argues that to be “progressive Left” you (in practice) need to side with the US by supporting their provision of military weapons to the Ukraine Government.

At the risk of being accused of being labelled ‘regressive’, pouring arms into the conflict, like pouring oil on a fire, has profoundly negative consequences. It will inevitably intensify and prolong the war and, as more people die and more cities are destroyed, make a peaceful resolution and settlement less and less achievable. There is also the possibility of this action escalating the conflict by involving other States (something which the Ukrainian government has actively sought to do). It is also the case that effectively arming Neo-Nazis like the Azov Battalion is an act of political legitimization. Moreover, this has spilt over into glorification; here in Australia (and presumably elsewhere) we have seen televised statements from commanding officers of the Azov Battalion broadcasting ‘heroic’ speeches. Such platforms provide clear promotional potential and serve to embolden Neo Fascist elements which are clearly becoming more active across Europe. It is surprising that these consequences have not really been considered in McIntyre’s constant assertion of the need to pick a side in the conflict. Clearly as Mark Hayes argues, each case should be analysed individually; adopting this blanket ‘supreme international crime’ position dismisses context and ignores consideration of negative consequence; the corollary here is that it would have compelled the Left to support sending tanks to Pol Pot to protect his regime from Vietnamese invaders in 1978.

McIntyre also argued a clear deontological message that democracies should always be defended against totalitarian states. I am not contesting this as a general principle, but again the analysis is too simplistic given the inadequacies of Western democracies which we are all aware of. Avoiding my personal gripe at Thatcher’s election with a minority of the vote in ’79 and leaving aside the pervasive warping influence of right wing State apparatus which invariably undermines democratic process (re Corbyn), there was recently only a very narrow avoidance of democratically re-electing Donald Trump (who achieved the second largest electoral vote for a Party in US history). Reminiscent of The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer, fledgling dictatorship through democracy was only avoided by a whisker. Moreover, drawing these black and white distinctions ignores the fact that Putin was actually elected and with 77% of the Russian vote. While both systems have been undoubtedly infused with corruption, in practice it is not a simple choice of Democracy vs Totalitarianism for the Left; how does this stack up in considering the US/Vietnam war? What if a Trump led administration entered into armed conflict with Cuba? The point is, evoking absolutist positions at the expense of context does not clarify complex problems, nor do they in and of themselves guide our actions to resolve them.

What is happening in the Ukraine at the moment is clearly atrocious and all efforts should be made to find a peaceful resolution as quickly as possible. This involves addressing the complexities and considering the concerns and motivations of both sides in order to seek to resolve them politically. This involves the rejection of positions and actions that risk the amplification of armed conflict, death and destruction. This involves avoiding positions that support the dominant ‘good guy, bad guy’ rhetoric promoted by the same apparatuses that sold the big lie about WMD in Iraq. It is not an abdication of Left wing principles to refuse to support either side in this conflict nor is it in any way progressive to file in behind the US provision of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to one side.

⏩Paul Aylward is a Public Health academic and researcher working in Adelaide, South Australia. He is a life-long Socialist and committed anti-Fascist from Liverpool.

Positioning The Left In The Ukraine Conflict

Mark Hayes discusses the War In Ukraine, amongst other things, with Anthony McIntyre. It was part of a WhatsApp conversation on the current situation in Ukraine where old friends vigorously disagreed . . . but still remained old friends! Mark Hayes felt it would be of interest to TPQ readers, and his partner very generously transcribed it. The only amendments were for typos, grammar or tidying.. The substance has not been altered and is faithful to the exchange. This round is the final in a series of three between the two men.

Anthony McIntyre & Mark Hayes
Part 3

MH: So let's be clear here. Are you saying there is no meaningful difference between say Castro and Hitler? I find that hard to accept. This is where I fundamentally disagree. A dictatorship that educates people, provides a first-class health service and sends doctors around the world is different to a dictatorship that invades other countries and sees fellow human beings as a racial disease. This seems to me to be so obvious that it doesn't require further elaboration.

AM: There are degrees of difference between all dictators just as there are degrees of difference between war criminals. But they are all war criminals. There are no good war criminals and no good dictators. Ask the Cuban gays what they think of being treated as diseased. First class health service is tosh. Myself and Tommy Gorman met a Marxist professor who had worked and studied in Cuba. He put us right to the PR on that. He defended it as anything but first class, while still superior to others. The Dark hated the rich-poor divide in the country. Came back disillusioned.

MH: But it's still different. The aims are different, the intent is different, the context is different, and its qualitative. Lumping them together is hopelessly reductive. It's like saying all democracies are good. They aren't. You have already conceded that implicitly by accepting some kind of differentiation. And that applies to lumping together so-called “totalitarian” regimes too. It doesn't really provide enough detail. It’s just a boo word. It’s applied to anything they don't like. Like “terrorism” or “extremism”, the terms don't enlighten, they obfuscate. As for Cuba I have many friends who have been and are supportive despite the problems (caused primarily by the embargo). As for gays in Cuba Castro got it hopelessly wrong and I think you'll find he acknowledged that later on. That doesn't make him a role model. But I don't remember Hitler or Mussolini displaying any such reflexive self-awareness. The differences are far more important than the similarities in this case.

AM: The discourse is different, but the aims cannot be separated from the delivery. Any thug can promise a good time. It is real time we must address not the promise of a good time. Communist parties the world over are known for everything but delivering equality. Ideology is just a wank-word when the goals are abandoned. They are just discourses. If they were genuine ideas they would be at least held onto rather than jettisoned. For all its imperfections democracy is a much healthier concept than dictatorship. The historic project of the Left has to be maximum democracy not dictatorship. Castro was just another rights suppressor. I am always on the side of the people being suppressed and never with their suppressor. I support the rights of Cuban society without endorsing its dictator. Just as I do the rights of Ukrainian society without endorsing its government. US imperialism has no more right to interfere in Cuba than Russian imperialism has to interfere in Ukraine. But the Tankie Left have given the US every justification it needs for its stance on Cuba. I actually told one he would end up seeing his Cuban solidarity group avoided because of his support for Russia's war. Surprisingly he agreed. Hitler and Mussolini were cunts just like Stalin, Hoeneker and Ceaucescu. They all shared an ideology of brute force domination. That is the one idea they all cling tenaciously to, right until the firing squad.

MH: You will get no argument from me that the names you mentioned are cunts. That's a given. But we have to treat every case sui generis. There are levels on the cunt-o-meter. I also think some communist societies have made great progress despite the authoritarianism Vietnam is a good example, Cuba is too. This confirms my point. A lazy typology that fails to differentiate isn't just inaccurate, it's deceitful. To put it in more personal terms, your “canary in the coal mine” trouble-making might perform an invaluable function, and under some authoritarian regimes you may be in deep water, perhaps risking your liberty. In others, and under fascism for sure, you would be dead. We both would (probably me first). That's a distinct qualitative difference right there. As for Tankies, who knows? They can be wrong on Russia but right on Ukraine - I think that's possible. I don't think the use of force constitutes an ideology. It's a method. It can be used in different ways for different purposes.

AM: There are levels with communists and fascists at top and bottom of both. The deceitful typology has to lie in a model that holds for one group of mass murderers to be excused over another. The data is what determines, not the excuses. And the data unfailingly points to mass repression in communist societies. The Tankies struggle with that and rely on suppression rather than engagement. I would survive under no authoritarian regime whether of the Left, Right or religious. And people do survive fascist regimes while they can often fail to survive Stalinist ones. Camp ideologies operate that way. Not everybody sent to camps fails to come out. There is nothing wrong with the Tankies criticising Ukraine. It has a far right problem that has been understated. The history of NATO merits serious criticism also. The Tankie problem is that they support a right wing Russian imperialist war. That will make them more irrelevant than ever. They don't contest elections here because they would get fewer votes than Screaming Lord Sutch. The state needs the CP. While it carries on like the Westboro Baptist Church it reinforces a perception that Left ideas amount to wankology. The rest of us have to contend with that. We don't really think the CP is so infiltrated because of any threat it poses. It is because it is a valuable asset in the state’s ideological battle to maintain hegemony. Have it as the carrier of useless ideas and it's job done for the state. Force is an ideological driven method not a technical one. Otherwise the Holocaust is just method. The Holocaust is the outworking of Nazi ideology just as the Holodomor is the outworking of Stalinist ideology. It lies in the existential need of both ideological systems to crush and control. We never judge a religion by its own ideological account of itself. Why would we judge communist ideology any differently?

MH: I think that is real empirical evidence of progress and some communist or left wing societies. Literacy rates, life expectancy, healthcare provision etc - look at Chavez in Venezuela. So it's not just blagging. The use of force or violence should never be divorced from intent and purpose. That's not unusual even when it comes to criminal violence juries are always encouraged to take account of circumstances. Just focusing on violence and assuming they are all the same means, for instance, that the violence perpetrated by Republicans and Loyalists was the same. That's not sustainable. In the same way state violence to socialise production isn't the same as state violence to exterminate a community seen as subhuman. You are right - the Holocaust was the logical outcome of ideology. Maybe Holodomor was too. The huge difference is that Stalin betrayed his professed ideology. Hitler followed his meticulously. So Stalin can't invalidate the communist idea. Hitler confirmed the malevolence of his ideology perfectly. I don't see the Tankies constituting any real presence or significance. Maybe they have that role in Ireland. Over here that role is played by assorted Trots. As MI5 author Peter Wright said, they are “as dangerous as a pond full of quacking ducks”. I have had close contact with them over many years. There are some very decent individuals, but overall a nuisance. The problem is that the Left has completely deserted the working class. There is no organic connection to workers. When that happens ideology is just facile wishful thinking. Wankology indeed.

AM: Is there a society of any hue where progress has not occurred? Pinker traces this very well. Nor is it a matter of just focusing on violence. All states use violence. The focus is on crimes against humanity. Where Republicans and Loyalists commit war crimes there are no differences. Kingsmill is no different from Dublin, Monaghan or Bloody Sunday. They're all war crimes and context does not mitigate that. State mass murder to socialise production is every bit as egregious as state mass murder to exterminate races. Both are abominations. The ends never justify the means. Communism is what communism does. Stalin merely applied what Engels said was the most authoritarian of processes - revolution. Hitler did likewise. The Jews were to be expelled, resettled, the Holocaust came along the way. The argument that Stalin betrayed the ideology doesn't work. Lenin was as much an authoritarian as Stalin. Poulantzas made the point that statism was the problem and it was essential to communist ideology. Ideology is not a number plate to be stuck on the front of something. It is lived. Marx arguably held a different view if we read his Paris Commune perspective literally. But Marx can only be defended and salvaged by a total rejection of 1917 Bolshevism and post-1917 communism. Anything else leads to the camps. The communists have always deserted the working class. Their route to power necessitates that abandonment. The last thing to die is not hope or ideas but that lust for power.

MH: I don't think communism is what communism does at all. In effect you are applying the number plate “same as Nazis” or “doomed to fail”. I think Marxism as an ideology offers a convincing explanation of the way society works - give me a better alternative. It doesn't need to be tied to any particular communist practice. Having said that I would endorse Lenin’s effort at revolution in 1917 as the only sane option in the circumstances. What good alternative was there when you are starving and sent to the trenches with no weapons? Democratic centralism was a logical organisational response to tsarist tyranny especially the Okhrana. Stalin exploited and misused it. So I think there is credibility in the Trot analysis. The logic of your entire argument is that there is no real ideological difference between me and many of my comrades and members of Combat 18 or Azov. That is bordering on the absurd. And of course the ends justify the means - what else could? Nothing would get done otherwise. The real question is proportionality. Here war crimes also get dragged into the swamp of hypocrisy. Curtis Le May’s US Air Force killed 100,000 Japanese civilians every night (not A bombs – incendiaries). He knew it was a war crime. He also knew if you win you never get called on it. I agree every state uses violence and there is structural violence embedded in social organisations and processes. Poverty is the consequence of an inherently violent social order. The promise of revolution is that this may precipitate an end to this sorry state of affairs. You reject that. Fine. And I have a pretty clear idea what you are against. What's not clear is exactly what you are offering as an alternative. Democracy isn't saying very much there have been some pretty hideous versions (the “liberal” one I am experienced at the moment is imperialist, racist, corrupt, exploitative and rotten to the core).

AM: A person is what a person does. Jimmy Savile is not what he said he was. He is what he did. Same with communism, religion and Nazism. I very much stick a number-plate on the lot of them. It is an empirical number plate not an ideological one. Everybody claims that their own ideology offers the most convincing explanation of how the world works. That is the function of ideology. It universalises the particular. What religion doesn't think the same thing? They all tell you this in the way a man might think his wife is the most beautiful and his children the most intelligent. But we know to pay no attention to their claims. Others will assess them on those claims. Even though I see the world through a Marxian lens it can only describe. It has been an abysmal failure in prescribing. Lenin was a gangster who knew he was abandoning the crucial essence of Marxism in pursuit of a power grab for him and his cronies. Seriously, allowing a communist dictatorship! That's like asking Jimmy Savile to give you one. He is not gonna refuse. Democratic centralism was all central and no democracy. How capitalism benefited from that and ultimately defeated the Soviets in the Cold War. The difference between you and Azov is that you both claim to believe in different things. You both claim your very different discourses offer the best explanation of what is wrong with the world and the best way to fix it. But your dictatorship is no better than theirs. You just happen to think it is and I don't.

MH: We don't claim to believe in different things we actually do. So the consequences were never likely to be identical - they aren't and haven't been. You might not like either of them but they are substantially different (your heroic efforts to claim otherwise notwithstanding). And in May I will be paying my respects to one of those dictatorships (Soviet) for defeating another (Nazi) because without that epochal event I'd probably be speaking German now. My (Irish) Grandfather, who fought in the war against the Nazis, knew that. So do I. (PS I don't think Savile was gay mate he was a pedo-necrophiliac).

AM: Stalinists and Nazis believe in different forms of dictatorship. Each delude themselves that their murderous dictatorship is better than the other murderous dictatorship. To the rest of us who aspire to a dictator free existence it's like two bald men arguing over a comb. I too will remember the Soviet citizens but not the regime. The old Molotov-Ribbentrop pact still rankles as does their carve up of Poland. And the bastard was willing to give Ukraine to the Nazis to save his skin. His ambassador refused to make the approach, telling him that even if he pulled back to the Urals he would win in the end. The millions of Soviet citizens sacrificed by the bastards in power through incompetence and evil including the murderous purge in 1937 will forever demonstrate the true character of the regime. Pigs of the same murderous sow - their faux differences another ideological myth.

MH: Some murderous dictatorships are better than others. That seems to me to be an obvious fact. One tried to invade my country, bombed my community, and killed several of my relatives. Another saved me and my family from racist fanatics. My grandchildren will benefit. I agree that all dictatorships are bad. I would not choose that system of government. But if we can't differentiate, then the Sultan of Brunei or the king of Swaziland are the same as Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein. They clearly aren't. We make informed choices on the basis of the historical and empirical evidence. Sometimes in dire circumstances we are actually forced to choose. You don't see any differences. I do.

AM: Just as some Nazis are better than others, but it hardly recommends itself. The denial of democracy by despots is the one issue the Left should set its face against. Society should not be left scavenging for crumbs that fall from dictators' tables. We can and do differentiate when we are forced to choose. But we never lose sight of the fact that it is the lesser of evils we choose. We do not pretend we are choosing on the basis of any good. We can easily differentiate but we employ a moral calculus and not an ideological one which extols crimes against humanity when the perpetrators share our ideas. We do not claim to be Marxists who support a right-wing capitalist invasion of its neighbour. That's not an inability to differentiate, it’s a derangement. In a world where there are only two choices - the Stalinists who threaten to murder 3 million or the Nazis who threaten to murder 3 thousand, we are forced to opt for the Nazis as the lesser evil. The real world is never like that but as a thought experiment it leads us to think how it could be.

MH: Lesser evil is absolutely right. And those decisions are never easy. In fact they are torturous. It's exactly the reason why we struggled to pick a side in the current war. Which is exactly where we started.

AM: I don't struggle to pick a side. It's very simple. A right-wing capitalist regime invades its neighbour. There is only one side to pick. The side subject to the supreme international crime.

MH: We are back with exactly the same problem. Provocation, proportional response etc - the problem I have is that this has been portrayed as good versus evil. That's a simplistic hypocritical western narrative and a grotesque distortion of the truth. I don't see it that way at all. There are no good guys and I'm surprised we can't agree on that. If you acknowledged Ukraine as a lesser evil, we would at least be in the same ball park. Ukraine is a nest of Nazi Vipers engaged in, or sanctioning, ethnic cleansing. Russia is an evil gangster capitalist state defending ethnic Russians and trying to allay security concerns. You find it easy to choose in this case - I really don't. The best solution is a negotiated settlement and an end to the carnage. We can look forward to a similar debate when China invades Taiwan. By the way I lean towards China, but you probably guessed that.

AM: A right wing imperialist project invaded its neighbour. The Left in general did what it was supposed to do. It supported those attacked not those attacking. Much as the left opposes US drone strikes against the theocratic fascists. The Tankie element went up its own backside because essentially it is attracted by the authoritarianism of the Kremlin just as it always has been. The history of Nazism in Ukraine is best understood by an inability to distinguish between the Soviet repression and the Nazi repression. The moral choice between murderous SS and murderous NKVD was pretty much a flip of a coin. Ukraine’s losses were enormous and now it is besmirched to suit the propaganda of the invader. The Russian state has more of the traits of fascism than Ukraine in both how it rules internally and its expansionist foreign policy. The grotesque distortion of the truth is one that holds that both sides are equally at fault. That is reactionary Right and regressive Left narrative. What unites regressive Left and reactionary Right is a shared antipathy towards a democratic ethos. There are good guys in this war. The citizens of the attacked society are good guys. The attackers are the bad guys. Simple. Even if we ignore the moral categories of good and evil we can apply the political ones of right and wrong. The supreme international crime is wrong. The opposition to that crime is right. Russia has been manipulating the ethnic Russian issue for years in a bid to have greater influence over its neighbours. To think that this is about defending ethnic Russians is to fall for Kremlin PR. It is essentially saying that for the first time ever a capitalist state has made a humanitarian military intervention in a neighbouring country. What are the chances of that being true? The regressive Left is forgetting everything it ever learned in order to defend its love for its warped application of the Brezhnev Doctrine. In doing so it again reveals that totalitarianism not Left ideas is what drives it. Even if we revert to the lesser of evils you found it simple to approve the lesser evil when the Nazis invaded the USSR. It should be a relatively simple choice to approve the lesser evil here. Chinese authoritarianism? But I guess you will understand why I'm not surprised.

MH: I see no equivalence between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. That is falling for the US-created totalitarian trope. It has no merit because it simply concentrated on method. It's like saying anyone using violence is bad. It is a simplistic device to tar people you don't like with the same brush. Like the terrorism trope. I really don't equate the SS and the NKVD at all. Both horrible, but one is clearly far more obnoxious than the other. I think you stray from the legitimate parameters of debate by bringing civilians in here - no one ever said civilians weren't innocent. They are in the Ukrainian and Russian case. I think you underestimate the terror inflicted by Azov in Donbas. 14,000 dead isn't a pretext. Roasting Russian people alive in Odessa and then celebrating the fact seems, to me, to be provocative. In backing Ukraine you have albeit inadvertently aligned yourself with Nazi ideologues and activists, corrupt and racist politicians, and the imperialist West. I do not fancy them as bedfellows. Nor do I like the idea of supporting Putin. Hence my decision to sit on my hands. If you simply assume that my political decision not to weigh in against Russia reveals my (or the Left’s) penchant for authoritarianism - you would have to explain why I fought fascists (literally). What would be the point? Then you'd have to acknowledge that the reason is they are very different! The alternative is to argue anti-fascists and fascists are the same - I actually think that is the logic of your argument.

AM: Yet you are unable to present a model that would plausibly show the differences above the similarities. The US academics are only wrong for trying to differentiate between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Holodomor and Holocaust have more in common than not. Using violence is bad and should always be the last resort. And when used, done so in a way that minimises harm to the innocent. The mass murder by camp ideologies has failed that criterion and should be shunned by humankind. I see no difference between NKVD and SS. Both murder gangs were used to butcher civilian populations. But even if there is some theological difference, we can hardly blame Ukrainians for not seeing it. Who is seriously going to listen to we murder your children because we are good. They murder your children because they are bad? As Billy Connolly would say "fuck off." It seems to me you fought fascists for no good reason. A zebra with black stripes hating a zebra with white stripes. You endorse their methodology. It's very much Tweedledum fighting Tweedledee unless you eschew the camp ideologies. A Left road to the camp is much the same as a Right road. Our death camp good - your death camp bad just merits ridicule. In my view if there were only two parties to join - the Nazis or the Social Democrats - the Stalinists would join the Nazis. Then they would come up with all the twisted logic to justify it and the authoritarian methods to suppress opposition to it. The regressive Left smearing of people as lining up with Nazis for taking up the Left position is just that and analytically inane. The entire progressive Left supports Ukraine. Only the regressive Left fails to. Genuine anti-fascist are very different from Nazis. Stalinists are not very different from Nazis.

MH: You have made your position absolutely clear. Politically we have very little (if anything) in common. Fighting fascism is a moral obligation, even in Ukraine, by all means necessary. It will remain so. I’m a communist Mackers and you are an anti-communist. I respect your perspective only because you are articulating it (you have earned that and deserve it as a friend). But I am in a minority – your views simply reflect western (neo) liberal orthodoxy. There is absolutely nothing in what you have said that hasn’t been said before by Hayek and Friedman (Thatcher or Pinochet). What is really odd is that you obviously know what fascists are like (Loyalism is simply a nasty parochial version) but you deride (there is no other word for it) militant anti-fascists. I am never going to disrespect that political heritage. It is part of who I am. No pasaran!
 
⏭ Mark Hayes has published widely on a variety of subjects. He is a republican and a Marxist, unapologetic on both counts.

⏩ Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

In Quillversation ✑ Russia-Ukraine @ Ⅲ

Mark Hayes discusses the War In Ukraine, amongst other things, with Anthony McIntyre. It was part of a WhatsApp conversation on the current situation in Ukraine where old friends vigorously disagreed . . . but still remained old friends! Mark Hayes felt it would be of interest to TPQ readers, and his partner very generously transcribed it. The only amendments were for typos, grammar or tidying.. The substance has not been altered and is faithful to the exchange. This round is the second in a series of three between the two men.

Anthony McIntyre & Mark Hayes
Part 2

AM: I think there are two conflict levels - geopolitical and regional. A society defending itself against the supreme international crime should be armed to resist but not to bomb Moscow or kill Russian civilians. The same argument exists for Palestinians. Were Ukrainians not armed Russia would be in control of the country right now. I think the Left must always pitch itself against invasion, occupation and aggressive war. I despise Azov myself but according to the Ukrainian Left they are a small part of this war, unlike 2014.

MH: I think the Right has leverage because it is extremely violent, it's not about numbers. Sometimes geopolitics is about making really uncomfortable judgement calls. Got myself in a lot of hot water with the “Left” because I supported the Soviets in Afghanistan. I just saw it as better than the Taliban. Of course we'd love workers’ revolution but the choice in reality was secular authoritarianism or maniac mullahs. My choice made me a “Stalinist cunt” apparently. “Bait and bleed” is the US strategy. I think this is the key reason for ambivalence on the Left. Many are prepared to say “a pox on both your houses” because it's clear that the CIA have manipulated this. Add to that the vested interest of the arms industry and lefties are bound to breakout in a cold sweat. Doesn't mean they support Putin. I don't know any that do. It's tragic for ordinary people but humanitarian aid is as far as it goes.

AM: I get that but I find a totalitarian strain within the Left which is more interested in building camps than it is concerned about the route to the camps. Is there any serious difference between the Holodomor and the Holocaust? Russia had options other than the supreme war crime. The Left fails if it can't defend societies against that. I think the Left has to remain true to its core fund fundamentals while mercilessly calling out the West. I think the Left needs to be saying what the neo-realists are saying without sharing their amorality. Russia has an imperialist mindset and simply cannot see other societies as nation states. The West will win out on the discourse around that.

MH: Yes the West has controlled the narrative but it's here that the hypocrisy is breath-taking. They have ruined Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc with no apologies. I think the Holocaust was unique but I take your point, but even here the West has a selective memory. Famines in Punjab and Ireland, Native American genocide, slavery and so on. I think the Left has an intuitive impulse not to fall in line behind duplicitous reactionaries.

AM: The Left just choose a different totalitarian to fall behind. I am suspicious of the narrative of the Holocaust being unique. It empowers the Holocaust Industry. The greatest crime of World War Two was the war of extermination in the East. The Holocaust figured in it but as a component part.

MH: I agree with that. Zionists have exploited it. And it was a progression. But the industrialised nature of it made it different. I don't subscribe to the totalitarian analysis because it's a false equivalence - we've been here before. I really wish I could support the Ukrainian regime but the baggage it carries stinks and the stench is too much for me and many others.

AM: The Nazis were not just about gas chambers. Like the Soviets, they engaged in murder by hunger. The war of annihilation in the East was industrial and methodological. If Russia can back Assad the Left can back Ukrainian society while holding its nose to the regime. The Russians have a significantly bigger fascist problem than Ukraine. I would be less critical if the Soviets had invaded Ukraine. But this is right wing Russia. Being neutral here is like being neutral in Israel-Palestine. Hamas theocrats repel me but the Left must stand with Palestinian society and not sit neutral on the fence

MH: I see that line of reasoning but I think there are problems. One is that I can't quite equate Hamas with Azov et al. Maybe Islamic State or al Qaeda might be a plausible comparator. Also Hamas are on the side of the victims. That's obvious. However, I think there is enough evidence from the UN and elsewhere that the Ukrainian regime sponsored aggression in Donbass. It was ethnic cleansing. So I don't see the regime as blameless. Therefore, I think people are entitled to their neutrality

AM: To me it's an abdication by the Left to claim a right to neutrality. When the supreme international crime is perpetrated neutrality between perpetrator and target is anathema to a Left ethic. The Russian state is right wing authoritarian to a much greater degree than Ukraine. Russia murdered far more people in Chechnya than were killed by Ukraine in Donbas yet people wave the neutrality flag and try to make Ukraine the equal of the aggressor. This is simply bankrupt but the Tankie left has been bankrupt for quite some time so I don't imagine it getting things right anytime soon. I guess being a Tankie is for them the equivalent of being a Young Earth Creationist. It's in the genes.

MH: We can agree that Russia is awful but it's interesting to see Chechens on the frontline in Mariupol - they must have short memories. Similarly, the Chinese regime may be awful but so are the Americans and the British when it comes to geopolitics. I see few redeeming features in the Ukrainian regime. Zelensky is a puppet and a PR man, albeit a pretty good one. I certainly don't think any side is worth shedding blood for. I think longer term - in geopolitical terms - preventing the United States’ global hegemony maybe a positive. I realise that as a controversial view but my expectations are very low. I could call it realism. And negotiated peace deal and a very uneasy multipolar future is the best we can hope for

AM: The Left should never side with right-wing authoritarian aggression. It loses its soul and its credibility.

MH: OK. Let's assume the Ukrainians were able to win this conflict and this emboldens the worst of the Nazi vipers buried deep in Ukraine's institutions - how would you propose they are dealt with? It seems to me that destroying those shitbags is at least a silver lining in this shit-show.

AM: The Nazi element is being invigorated by the invasion much as it grew from state violence in 2014. Russia has a greater far right problem than Ukraine. Why not support a NATO attack on Russia to curb the Far Right? This is where the logic takes us. See what the Ukrainian Left are saying - the Left surely must back the Ukrainian Left against the Russian Right.

MH: I think NATO is run by maniacs as well to be honest. The problem with any analysis here is that the die has already been cast. The Left “no war - Russian withdrawal” position is absurdly utopian. The best we can hope for is a negotiated settlement which constitutes a genuine compromise. I think the difference between my own position and the Left (with deluded Tankies on one side and warmongering liberals on the other) is that I don't see any good guys here. Many of the combatants are either evil or have been complicit in evil. The tragedy for ordinary people in this context is beyond endurance.

AM: The good guys have to be the invaded and the bad guys are the invaders. Once that is laid out the rest can be tackled. NATO needs to be replaced with a new security system. But Russia has made NATO an attractive option for states who do not want to be Russian vassals.

MH: I don't see it like that because of Ukraine CIA provocation which has been going on for years -  you can't keep kicking someone in the balls and expect them to put up with it.

AM: Ukraine like any society has the right to be free from right-wing invasion. It has the right not to be a vassal state of Russian capitalism. It has the right to resist. These are fundamental Left positions. The strongest support/sympathy for Russia in the West comes from the Right.

MH: Maybe. But I did a straw poll of my lefty mates (totally unscientific of course) and most of them, if made to choose, opted for Russia. That may reflect the company I keep. You'd get a different answer from the liberal Left I imagine - lots of them are gagging for war with Russia. Warmongering isn't a Left position either but plenty of them are willing to fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood.

AM: The bulk of the Left outside of Tankies is opposed to the Russian war. Even to think of a leftist supporting the supreme international crime goes totally against the grain. It is as incongruous as Republicans supporting the DUP. To me it confirms that the attraction is not Left ideas but authoritarianism. This is why communist parties the world over shaft the working classes in pursuit of privilege. Hitler allowed former communists into the Nazi party but not former Social Democrats - his reasoning was that they thought much as Nazis did. Hated democracy. The Left supporting right wing invasion is merely an abdication of the Left ontology. It makes not the slightest sense.

MH: Yes, but hundreds of thousands of communists died at the hands of Hitler and more died courageously fighting him. We've been down this road before. I don't agree with making that kind of equivalence at all. Apart from the ideological arguments (pro and anti-equality etc) I think it undervalues the sacrifice of many honourable people. I guess we agree to differ on this as with much else, but I respect your view because it's consistent. I would not question your motives. However, I can't say the same for a lot of other people who adopt a similar position.

AM: Just one crowd of authoritarians fighting another. Nazis also died courageously fighting Russian authoritarians. We supported the Russians in that war for the same reason we support the Ukrainians. Imperial invasion is always wrong. There are no honourable authoritarians. Scratch a Stalinist and a Nazi bleeds.

MH: Yes that's totalitarian theory. Invented by Americans like Shapiro and Brzezinski to discredit all forms of communism. It isn't convincing even on its own terms. There are different types of authoritarianism like there are different diseases. It's just not helpful to lump them altogether. We need more precision. To take a single example a system that socialises the means of production isn't the same as a system based on profit. They are qualitatively different. Even if you take your assumptions at face value that they both imprisoned and killed people - they have different enemies. It might make them both very unpleasant - but they aren't the same. Differentiating isn't a capitulation it's just a matter of being accurate. It also acknowledges that they can be ideological enemies. Which they are.

AM: Both systems hate democracy, suppress freedom of thought, build camps, perpetrate mass murder and enrich their leaders - the similarities are endless. One gang claiming it does so to socialise the means of production is hot air. They seek to maximise their own power and privilege over others. They just do it in a different way from the opposing totalitarian. Theological distinctions between dictatorships are never persuasive. Few believe them. The American theorists were right about totalitarianism. They were wrong in trying to differentiate left totalitarianism from right authoritarianism.: all pigs of the same sow. There is no qualitative or ethical or political difference between the Holocaust and the Holodomor. Process justifies outcome, and the ends don't justify means. The Tankie Left just end up sounding like the Westboro Baptist Church. How they support regimes bordering on the fascist only they can explain.

MH: But they clearly aren't the same. Different methods, aims, different enemies and so on. Mackers, my team (Saints) gets dicked regularly. The impact on me is the same every time - depression and misery. That doesn't mean that Chelsea and Man United are the same. The impact might be, but they are obviously different. And I reserve the right to hate one more than the other because of the qualitative differences. So, the context matters. There is a massive difference between the Holocaust and famine, not least because who the victims were. One targeted Jews specifically and used industrial methods of extermination. That's an enormous difference. Moreover, why would communists form a key part of resistance to fascism in Italy, France, Greece etc if Nazism is exactly the same as the ideology they profess? It makes no sense.

AM: Different methods? Mass murder by hunger or gassing hardly amounts to a qualitative difference. Chelsea and Man U are different teams playing the same game. Just like the Stalinists and Nazis. Context too often is an alibi. Stalinists, to all intents and purposes, might as well be Left fascists. Stalinism draws the same type of character as Nazism. Those with the urge to dominate and oppress through systemic violence. We need to stop privileging the Jews. Stalinist mass murder of millions of human beings is as vile as Nazi mass murder of millions of humans. The Israelis made a Holocaust industry out of privileging Jewish suffering above all others. It was a racist play by Israel. There is no good mass murder, no privileging of one group of victims of mass murder over another, no excusing one set of mass murderers over another. Communism and Nazism are to be judged not by the ideological differences they profess. That's just PR. They are to be judged by the mass murder they inflict. Far right fight far right in Ukraine. Azov once hero-worshipped Putin as the authoritarian right wing strongman. Communists fighting Nazis in all countries listed was just a power grab. That was shown post World War Two. Attributing noble motives to Stalinism is as implausible as attributing them to Nazis. We have no communists invading Ukraine, just right-wing authoritarians

MH: We will have to agree to differ. I will never see them as the same. Cancer and heart disease kills people. They aren't the same although the ultimate effects are. It therefore requires a different remedy for each. What you see as PR I actually think is very significant. Only by understanding the ideology and the key differences can you rectify and resist effectively. I think I agree with you about Israel. It's a good point because the Holocaust has been manipulated (pace Finkelstein). It's a strange fact that Israel claims victim status but the ideology of Zionism has a lot in common with fascism – racist, cultural and ethnic supremacism etc. Of course, I'm a Marxist so I do believe communism can be different. You might argue that is utopian but I think your position, which sounds like a type of instinctive anti-authoritarian anarchism, is more utopian.

AM: Heart disease and cancer are malignancies. The differences do not make them less malignant. Likewise with Nazism and Stalinism. They are just different routes to monopolise power over others. The remedy to each is the democratic usurpation of both. The ideology merely masks the power lust. They function as regimes of truth. Nazis and Stalinists are zebras. One claims to be white with black stripes, the other claims to be black with white stripes. To the rest of us there is no visible difference. Zionism and Russian imperialism are mirror images. Anarchism is a useless position to hold. Marxism is the opium of the Marxists.

MH: I agree with Primo Levi - it is perfectly possible to conceive of a communism without camps and murder. Fascism without those things is inconceivable. Therefore, they are fundamentally different ideologies. You obviously draw some similarities in practice. Fair enough. But I also see distinct similarities in practice with western imperialism. Yet strangely no one is anxious to draw those parallels. I wonder why? I think your solution of democracy sounds wonderfully liberal but even liberal democracies have been constructed on a mountain of corpses - slavery exploitation etc. Yet few are anxious to acknowledge it. Counting corpses and assuming equivalence is a farce unless it's applied to everyone and all systems. And once you do that it just degenerates into a facile moralism. Well, you are against murder. Great. But it doesn't get us very far. In order to do that you have to expand on what you mean by democracy. Not an easy concept to pin down - it's far too promiscuous (social/political/economic etc). It's far easier to be against something than to articulate a coherent alternative. I do genuinely think you do certain decent people a disservice by assuming their political beliefs simply masked a lust for power. We both know people for whom that isn't true. I'm also not even sure formal democracy gets you very far. What if 51% vote to enslave the other 49%? It might be a facetious point but there is a kernel of truth in this - we have to construct an ideology which progressives can buy into. Therein lies the problem.

AM: It is perfectly possible to dream of a fascism without camps for mass murder. It would only be a dream. Communism and fascism are what communism and fascism do not what they say they will do. Liberal democracy is a system that conceals a mountain of crimes which the Left are duty bound to oppose. But the Left cult that supports the Russian war of aggression has lost all moral authority with which to object to the failings of liberal democracy. Decency and dictators can hardly be spoken of in the same breath unless in terms of binary opposites. The decent dictator is something Charlie Chaplin might act in. Name one. To me decent dictator is like a decent rapist. The 51% to 49% is majoritarianism not democracy. Lenin had a critical view of those who would not see the difference between bourgeois democracy and illiberal or absolutist regimes.

MH: I don't think many on the Left favour dictatorship. I don't. My concern in equating communism and fascism as you do isn't in terms of some outcomes - clearly there are some similarities in terms of consequences, but I still question that. The real problem is the assumption you make about intentions, and thereby the ideology. It puts you in the reactionary camp that exonerated Hitler because he was only reacting to communist ideology. If you follow that argument then the Viet-Cong are the same as the KKK. That is absolutely inconceivable. The difference is I never questioned your motives. You questioned the intent of communism. That is a severe position. You are herding people into a conceptual prison that means they cannot escape no matter what they do or say because we are always “the same as them”. That particular conceptual device mirrors the authoritarianism you claim to oppose.

AM: The Left that oppose dictatorship seems very much opposed to the Russian war. The Tankie support for the war seems inseparable from their penchant for dictatorship. How else can any Left support the war crime from which all war crimes flow? I question the intent of communists. We don't as a rule listen to what the person tells us about themselves. We assess them on what they do. Same with fascists and Stalinists. Hitler was not only reacting to communism although his hatred of it was so strong he planned to eradicate it before planning to exterminate Jews. Nor was communist mass murder a response to Nazism. They were at it long before the Nazis. They even collaborated with the Nazis to divide Poland. The reactionary Right and the regressive Left are in the same camp - it despises democracy. We see them in bed together on the Russian war of aggression. Just as they were when they did Poland over. I always question the intent of fascists and Stalinists. Every thinking person should too. There is no difference between the mass murdering Stalinist and a mass murdering Nazi other than as semantic one. The Stalinists and Nazis herd themselves into the same camp. I merely point it out. They wish to object, I point to the data of what they do not to the discourse of what they say. They mirror each others’ authoritarianism and I call it by its name.

⏭ Mark Hayes has published widely on a variety of subjects. He is a republican and a Marxist, unapologetic on both counts.

⏩ Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

In Quillversation ✑ Russia-Ukraine @ Ⅱ

Mark Hayes discusses the War In Ukraine, amongst other things, with Anthony McIntyre. It was part of a WhatsApp conversation on the current situation in Ukraine where old friends vigorously disagreed . . . but still remained old friends! Mark Hayes felt it would be of interest to TPQ readers, and his partner very generously transcribed it. The only amendments were for typos, grammar or tidying.. The substance has not been altered and is faithful to the exchange. This round is the first in a series of three between the two men.

Anthony McIntyre & Mark Hayes
Part Ⅰ

MH: We are being played. The Nazis caused this. I am no fan of Putin, but there are no “good guys” in this scenario.

AM: Forget MSM. But there are some good sources about. My sympathies lie with the Ukrainian people much as they do with Palestinian people.

MH: I think we can agree that MSM has been dreadful - spooks everywhere. Yes I agree civilians are always victims and it needs to stop but the idea that this wasn't provoked is bullshit. Putin has overplayed his hand but Zelensky is a puppet for very dark forces. I went to Scott Ritter’s site cause I wanted to get away from the “Lefty” narrative on this issue (“workers unite” etc) because it's not realistic.

AM: Ritter seeks to undermine the US at every opportunity for whatever reason without being convincing. I like plausible analysis. There was an element of provocation but I think Putin used that as an excuse. I think Zelensky has won the PR battle.

MH: I think NATO used Asov to provoke the Russians in East Ukraine and overplayed their hand. The Russians have been planning this response since 2014 (maybe 2008). It is epochal because they want to fuck off the dollar and shift the global economic axis east (with China and India). They will bring on board lots of African and Latin American countries. US full spectrum dominance is over. Taiwan next. Dangerous times.

AM: Russia has its own Azov types. West might have laid a trap, but Putin seemingly had other motives. American power remains awesome unfortunately.

MH: Yes Russia does and Putin is a gangster. But I don't see any good guys in this fiasco certainly not the Yanks or British. I do have sympathy for civilians, especially those ethnic Russians who were being “cleansed” by racist fanatics.

AM: I think Dombas defies easy characterization. Far Right elements fought on both sides in 2014 despite sharing so much ideology. They came from afar and took their sides. Many Azov regarded Putin as a hero. Wholly contradictory. I spoke with an old school Marxist last week and he was for the Russians and the people of Donbas but he was parroting a line.

MH: I wouldn't lose a moments sleep if Azov were slaughtered. Problem is civilians will die in the process. Most Marxists I know refused to opt for either side.

AM: It seems to me to be an imperative to opt for the society being invaded. That pitches me against Russia immediately for the very same reason that I am pitched against Israel without supporting Hamas.

MH: I think ideology trumps national self-determination in this case. Ukrainians have a history of opting for fascism and Azov and the Right Sector et al are deeply embedded in the military. I adopt the same approach to Islamic fundamentalists anyway - to fuck them up suits me. So in short if I was given a gun and told I had to make a choice I'd probably opt for the Russians. But I'm glad that scenario is hypothetical.

AM: But the Russians are right-wing authoritarian nationalists pushing vulture capitalism. That ideology cannot trump national self-determination. This is not some left-right struggle. Ukraine sustained more losses, both military and civilian, than any other Soviet region fighting the Nazis. Ukraine has a serious far right problem, but it is being exacerbated by Russia. Azov grew in stature in response to 2014 repression. International solidarity with the people being invaded and against the right-wing invaders seems like only authentic stance the Left can take. I feel the Left is gonna come out the other side of this in a dire strait. Ukraine is not Nazi Germany and Russia is not Soviet Union. There is only one side to pick.

MH: Yes I know this is more complicated but I just don't have the same sympathy for Ukrainians who have made a point of hero worshipping the war criminal Bandera and who rushed to form their own SS divisions during the war. That legacy remains. I also think you underestimate the level of pro-Russian sentiment in Ukraine. There are some who would be happy to see the back of Zelensky. You are right it isn't Left v Right which is why I find the Left solutions impractical. It seems to me a straight case of opting for the lesser of two evils. Which is why I would have to be forced to choose. It is not Spain. I wouldn't lift a finger to help the Ukrainian government, although humanitarian aid is essential of course.

AM: The reason Bandera ever got sympathy, apart from being gaoled by the Nazis for most of the war, was that he represented an anti-Soviet nationalism made popular by Soviet atrocity. Very bitter memories exist as a result of what was inflicted on Ukraine by Stalin. Within days of Operation Barbarossa he offered Ukraine to the Nazis in a bid for peace. There was a lot of goodwill in Ukraine for Russia but that looks like evaporating. The pro-Russian crook of a president had at least 50% of the public but his draconian crackdown gave life to Azov. When right-wing capitalists launched an imperialist attack on another country and massacres its citizens there is only one side to be on. There are Marxists who genuinely feel Russia is moving towards fascism. It's right-wing nationalist authoritarian character is undeniable.

MH: Putin is a scumbag. And I know it is an authoritarian system. But I don't believe that de-Nazification is simply a pretext. 14,000 civilians were killed in Donbas while the Ukrainian government did nothing apart from arm the perpetrators. There is a legacy of anti-Nazism in Russia that is visceral and justified. I cannot discount or ignore that. Azov was a massive fuck-you to the Russians. I'm surprised the Russians didn't respond earlier if anything. That's not to say Russia were justified. The Minsk agreements should have been adhered to but Ukraine built up massive forces in Donbas. Ukraine has become a pawn in a game played by the CIA and MI6 against Putin and is now paying the price. As I'm sure we can agree civilians will pay the heaviest price.

AM: Four of the thirteen Soviet hero cities awarded for fighting Nazism were in Ukraine. They never went into de-Nazify any more than Israel goes into Gaza on security grounds. Russia backed far right forces in Donbas in 2014. It put troops on the ground to back the insurgents to destabilise Ukraine because it would not do its bidding. It was a response to Ukraine wanting to move towards EU. There is a legacy of anti-Nazism in Ukraine, not just in Russia. There is also a visceral anti-Kremlin attitude because of the Stalin murder by hunger in the early 1930s. Russia was crucial to Azov growing legs by backing the corrupt president. At the start Azov was marginal. At the end it had mushroomed because of the repression. One of Azov’s heroes was Putin. Feeding Nazism is not the means of blocking it. The Minsk agreement was not adhered to by either party. Ukrainians were never going to allow a veto by Donbas over foreign policy. Putin is a war criminal on a par with Netanyahu and should be given no leeway by the Left. If the Left is to have any authenticity it should oppose a right-wing authoritarian nationalism that is engaged in an expansionist imperialist project. If it fails to do that, its own arse is where it will end up. The Left needs to explain not excuse, and needs to know what side to be on when a fairly democratic society is under attack by an anti- democratic state.

MH: I think that this underestimates the extent to which Americans, particularly the security services, have manipulated this whole fiasco. Watch Oliver Stone’s Ukraine on Fire. This is cynical geo-politics for sure but I can't imagine the Americans being too happy if the Russians were manipulating the government in Mexico. As for the anti-Nazi Ukrainians during the war well that's a historical fact. So is the fact that many Ukrainians took their families on a day out to watch the massacres. Others became partisans simply because the Nazis treated them like Slav dogs, not because they disagreed with the ideology. My sense is that the Left is divided on this. There is no “position” because there are so many conflicting elements. I would however agree that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. It applies here. I think part of the reason I find the whole pro-Ukraine movement so distasteful is because we never held Western governments to account when they destroy the Middle East in a similar fashion (remember depleted uranium in Falluja etc) and we are paid to take Ukrainian refugees while Syrians can drown clinging to a lilo in the Mediterranean. The hypocrisy of the whole thing stinks.

AM: The US did manipulate. It is to maintain a unipolar world. But there is nothing new here. Russia manipulated just as readily. Its regime in Donbas ended up at the bottom of the democratic index. The Baltic states all joined NATO because they felt threatened by Russia. Watched Stone's film - bullshit propaganda and nowhere near good as Winter on Fire which was also propaganda but much more cleverly done. The US would never allow Mexico the room to align with Russia. But that just tells us what we know about the US. It does nothing to rehabilitate Russia. When people see no difference between Nazi murder and Soviet murder what side to pick doesn't rest on morality or ideology. A minority of Ukrainians participated in the SS. But when there is no perceivable difference between NKVD and SS, people are fucked every which way. Hypocrisy prevents us holding the West to account but that is no reason to let the Kremlin oligarchs wage war on a civilian population. The Left have no cause to be split on this. Opposition to imperialist aggression should determine where the Left stands. The Russian-backing Left will end up marooned. No wonder the Right is on the rise. The regressive left is a major asset to the far right.

MH: I just think a lot of people on the Left are very uneasy about backing a project that was so clearly engineered by the USA. They are also appalled at the double standards. I know I am. I don't know anyone who would actively or publicly support what Russia has done. Explaining or even understanding the motives isn't the same as justifying it. The world would be a better place without Putin. But the world would be a better place without Bolsonaro, the House of Saud, Duterte or any other anti-democratic monster. But the fact is Putin's approval rating now is 83% in Russia and he has made a play to change the world. The EU has hitched their wagon to sleepy Joe but the Yanks could not give one single fuck about them. It means we will all suffer. My point is that demonising Putin and virtue signalling by pretending the West’s shit doesn't stink won't get us out of this mess. Yes Putin is a cunt, but so was Blair and Bush. We need to end it by negotiation. The consequences of not doing so are dire for the Ukrainians and the rest of us.

AM: It should be ended by negotiation. But the right to use arms in this unequal conflict has to rest with Ukraine. It is being targeted by an imperialist power. If the Left can't stand firm against Russian aggression its opposition to Israeli aggression is nothing other than vacuous waffle.

MH: I don't see the equivalence because the Palestinians did nothing to precipitate their trauma. The Ukrainians government did. Like it or not. The Ukrainian citizens are paying the price for the utter stupidity and malevolence of their own government. That's tragic. By the way the Left opposition to Israel has always been vacuous because most of them have never conceded the right of Palestinians to armed defence. It was exactly the same in Ireland. Bullshitters on an epic scale.

AM: The Ukrainian government wanted the right to determine its own future in line with what its citizens wanted and was punished for it. Unlike Russia, power changes hands. The malevolence and stupidity is Russia's not Ukraine's. And it is a stupidity that is paying a heavy price. My experience of the Left is the opposite. I don't know which Left does not support Palestinian right to self-defence. Over here anyway.

MH: Then they should not have attacked ethnic Russians in the East, banned their language, derided their culture etc. By the way I think the Irish government had every right to intervene to protect nationalists in 1968-69. Putin overplayed his hand for his own reasons and should be held to account. The Left here is a different beast, I think. Their idea of socialism is the right of a man to wear a skirt (I jest, but you get my point). Identity politics and pathetic posturing has eviscerated the Left. I reckon I probably hate them more than you do. I am also not sure how far focusing on democracy in Ukraine is useful when your National Defence force is full of ideological Nazis. It's a bit like saying that Fred West had a nice patio.

AM: The attack in the East was in response to a pro-Russian militia occupying buildings and taking hostages. If not prompted by Russia it was certainly used by it to destabilize Ukraine in the wake of Maidan. The intervention logic explained above echoes the Nazi intervention in the Sudetenland. It also implies that for the first time ever in the history of right-wing imperialism a humanitarian military intervention was made. How credible is that? Donbas 2014 was like the North of Ireland - a loyalist group with allegiance to a foreign power trying to fragment national unity. The Nazis in the Defence Force are a small percentage but should not be there. Perhaps a worse problem is what Richard Sakwa identifies at policy level where policy is said to be held hostage by a raucous hard right minority. I don't hate the Left but I do despise the posture politics that often characterises them. Without the Left here we would struggle in workplace relations.

MH: Humanitarian military intervention has been the orthodoxy in the West in the Middle East and elsewhere. I think that's the point - it's hypocrisy to criticise this and not their own. Doesn't apply to you of course because you condemn both, but you can understand why people think you can shove your double standards up your hole.

AM: I still firmly believe that the Left is not worth a brass farthing if it fails to oppose the supreme war crime. From that all else follows. I support arming the Ukrainians with defensive weapons, but I support arming the Palestinians with them too.

MH: The role of the United States in this fiasco is central. It is a rogue state (pace Chomsky). The Neocons want to destabilise Russia and then it's Iran and China. I wouldn't supply Ukraine with weapons because it will just prolong the agony - precisely what the CIA wants. And as I said before I hate Azov. We have been here before but I think “everyone loses” just about sums it up.

⏭ Mark Hayes has published widely on a variety of subjects. He is a republican and a Marxist, unapologetic on both counts.

⏩ Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

In Quillversation ✑ Russia-Ukraine @ Ⅰ

Mark Hayes answers 13 questions in a Booker's Dozen.

TPQ: What are you currently reading? 

MH: I usually have two or three books on the go. Just finished Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s Love In A Time Of Cholera. Seemed appropriate. I can’t say that I really enjoyed it. Although some of the writing was beautifully constructed, I thought the main character was a sad, obsessive plank. Maybe I am too obtuse to appreciate the subtle nuances. Also just read God’s Traitors: Terror and Faith in Elizabethan England by Jessie Childs. Exceptional. I am currently reading Emile Zola’s Germinal after a recommendation by my daughter. It makes for very bleak reading in many respects, but it is an extraordinary account of exploitation and the struggle for dignity.

TPQ: Best and worst books you have ever read?

MH:  Maybe not the best (that’s a tough call), but my favourite book is Ralph Miliband The State In Capitalist Society because of the impact it had on me personally. It sounds dramatic but it opened up a whole new world for me - political theory. Without it I would have missed out on Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Connolly, Gramsci, Althusser, Badiou and all the other insightful accounts of the way the world works. I often wonder if Ralph’s sons ever read his book(s). Probably not. In terms of fiction Robert Tressell’s The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists runs it a close second, and for much the same reasons.

There are plenty of terrible books around. The pressure on academics to publish is huge, and the quality has diminished. I could name quite a few, but I find the post-modern identity warriors particularly irritating – it’s about class, you fools! Anyway, having said that, the worst book I have ever read was probably Mein Kampf (I forget who wrote it). Self-serving, verbose drivel. On the plus side it does provide incontrovertible evidence that the narcissistic, racist maniac was off his nut. Anyone taking that toxic shite seriously should really be dumped in the sea. Master race my arse!

TPQ: Book most cherished as a child?

MH: My uncle gave me a couple of the Biggles books by W.E. Johns. I enjoyed them at the time, but they are shamelessly ideological. Public school chums saving the nation from the Hun and other inferior races. I remember wondering why no-one I knew was called Algernon!

TPQ: Favourite Childhood author?

MH: I didn’t really have one because there weren’t many books in our house (and probably fewer at my school) but as a young teenager I read most of the Bond books by Ian Fleming. I guess that might count. Tom Sharpe made me laugh.

TPQ: First book to really own you?

MH: I suppose Orwell’s 1984, which I also read as a teenager. Very insightful indeed, and harrowing. (Of course, I didn’t realize at the time that some politicians would eventually use it as a manifesto). Orwell was a brilliant writer, and a very complex character. Shame he was a tout.

TPQ: Favourite male and female author?

MH: I respect the work of Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine, and the historical work of Antonia Fraser (her work on the Gunpowder plot in 1605 was splendid). Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein has hidden depths. However, it is difficult to look past Arundhati Roy. Her fiction is graceful and thought provoking - see The God of Small Things, but she has also tackled serious issues with factual accounts that are illuminating e.g. Walking with the Comrades and Capitalism: A Ghost Story. The integrity of her work is inspirational.

Obviously, there are classic male authors like Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Steinbeck, Orwell and Wilde. I have read some of their books. However, in terms of contemporary authors I used to really look forward to reading Slavoj Zizek, but he has produced far too much lately, and the quality has suffered. I like reading Terry Eagleton (incidentally his autobiography is laugh-out-loud funny), and the philosopher Ted Honderich has a unique style of engaging with the reader. Indeed, there are some authors whose writing style is so captivating that it can almost transcend the subject matter. Michael Burleigh is a good example, as was (Lord) Ian Gilmour. Some authors are able to turn a phrase so that it catches the light, and the way they articulate themselves is so clever that it demands respect, even if the ideas are deeply suspect. However, I think I would settle on Noam Chomsky because what he has to say is usually very important.

A Berlin Book Tower in memory of the Nazi book burning.

TPQ: A preference for fact or fiction?

MH: Fact always seems more interesting than fiction to me. Sometimes, when I read fiction, I have the sense that I am wasting my time. That erroneous perspective is probably a consequence of my “education” at school. My Comprehensive focused on woodwork and metal-work (what’s the point of exposing young lads from a council estate to the glorious heritage of literature, poetry and prose?). I have been trying to shrug off that kind of miserable functionalism all my adult life. I know I should read more fiction.

TPQ: Biography, autobiography or memoir that most impressed you?

MH: There are a few that spring immediately to mind. Primo Levi's If This Is A Man had a profound impact on me for obvious reasons. I would recommend Reza Aslan’s Zealot: Jesus of Nazareth. It’s a very thought-provoking account of Christ as an extraordinary person rather than the deity that was subsequently constructed and distorted by vested interests. It manages to capture the essence Christ better than any Catechism (at least that’s my experience). Albie Sach’s The Soft Vengeance of a Freedom Fighter is honest and compelling. Anne Somerset’s account of Elizabeth I is peerless in terms of the scholarship deployed. Isaac Deutcher’s trilogy on the life of Trotsky (The Prophet Armed --- The Prophet Unarmed --- The Prophet Outcast) is very good. I also recently read Fr. John Gerrard’s Diary of a Hunted Priest, which confirmed the impression (already firmly established in my own mind) that the Tudors were a set of evil, scheming, bastards. Finally, if you like your memoirs to be pointless, and laced with fantasy, Gerry Adams is your man.

TPQ: Any author or book you point blank refuse to read?

MH: Far too many to mention them all. Not only would I not read some authors, I would pay good money to watch them put in the stocks. I would also supply the rotten veg.

TPQ: A book to share with somebody so that they would more fully understand you?

MH: E.P. Thompson - The Making of the English Working Class. Brilliant. And it’s not like I had a choice.

TPQ: Last book you gave as a present?

MH: To be absolutely truthful it was The Trouble with National Action (written by some obscure, angry, unreconstructed Marxist). I gave it to a very good friend of mine, Eddie O’Neill. The book was dedicated to Eddie, so it seemed logical to inflict it upon him.

TPQ: Book you would most like to see turned into a movie?

MH: Forgive me my parochial preoccupations but I am a life-long Saints fan (I have chosen to view the trauma that this inevitably involves as “character building”). Therefore, I think Matthew Le Tissier’s autobiography Taking Le Tiss would make a great film. I have never read the book (and do not intend to) but it would be a blockbuster. The fans of Portsmouth F.C. should be forced to watch it. Once a week. (I have just realized I support two teams, Saints, and whoever is playing Pompey. When you think of Pompey supporters, imagine Linfield fans, minus the tolerance and humanity).

TPQ: A "must read" you intend getting to before you die?

MH: As that prospect looms ever closer, I would like to read more stuff by Shakespeare. What little I have discovered about his literature has been extraordinary (not the comedies – they leave me a bit cold). I am not ashamed to admit that sometimes I have to read passages two or three times to work out precisely what is going on (and even then I don’t always succeed), but occasionally the insights are breathtaking. Check out Hamlet where there is a discussion about how a king may pass through the guts of a beggar. Awesome. More of that would be good, but I think but I might also add Dickens, Brecht and Beckett for good measure.

⏭ Mark Hayes has published widely on a variety of subjects. He is a republican and a Marxist, unapologetic on both counts.

Booker's Dozen @ Mark Hayes

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)