Lemmy_Mouse
“Wokeness” is a campaign by the global classical liberal pette bourgeois, mainly orchestrated by Russia, and American and British classical liberals. The social reaction appears to be in response to multiculturalism with a particularly outright rejection of LGBT (lgb T <- !! ) culture instilled by neoliberalism. It’s an extension of their economic interests, however they confuse this popularization of the LGBT by neoliberal big bourgeoisie with LGBT itself. Unsurprisingly they do not study history. Why this is particularly dangerous is the relative success neoliberalism has had via LGBT virtue signalling, making the LGBT a comfortable scapegoat for the classical liberal pette bourgeois (the pette bourgeois in general being the historic base for fascism)
Prigozhin’s TG was hacked, Russian MoD confirmed this.
The charge for against Prigozhin instigating a coup appears to be correct, TASS has verified this.
A largescale disinfo campaign is underway throughout TG.
When I learn anything else solid I will update.
UPDATE: I was mistaken, the Russian MoD is not saying Prigozhin’s account was hacked, but that the information being displayed on it when referring to the video and audio messages accusing the Russian Forces of attacking Wagner, are fake. They have not confirmed that Prigozhin has been hacked, there was a translation error.
UPDATE #2: https://www.rt.com/russia/578553-prigozhin-armed-insurrection-updates/ https://www.rt.com/russia/578547-prigozhin-fsb-armed-rebellion/ https://www.rt.com/russia/578550-russian-general-message-wagner/ https://www.rt.com/russia/578544-mod-wagner-statement/ RT is state-owned. This is from the horse’s mouth
UPDATE #3 FINAL: Putin gave an emergency speech just now, in it he stated Prigozhin is a traitor and will be held accountable, that Russian troops and anti-terrorist mechanisms have been given their orders, and that Rostov will be decisively resolved. We will see how many Wagner remain loyal and how far this goes…
I agree on the general premise however I have 2 thoughts on the concept.
The anarchists are not anti-imperialist in practice, many have taken on the stance of pro-Ukraine “Russian imperialism”. This could be seen as an opportunity to educate them and it’s true many previously anarchists who have held reactionary stances have switched after being educated, however if this were reasonably obtainable it would have already been done. This is not to say it cannot be done, or that it is not worth doing, not at all, simply that it will be rather difficult and so that should be considered moving forward.
Uniting the left under the banner of anti-imperialism is good however I do not believe it should be our only goal. I believe working to build revolution should as well. There are many ideologies representing all workers and some of the middle class which benefit from anti-imperialist struggle (see rage against the war machine) however the middle class is incompatible with the struggle to liberate the working class of capitalist oppression. Uniting the left under anti-imperialism is likely to blend the 2 movements and ultimately hurt the cause of both as the contradicting class interests (between us and the bourgeoified middle class) are liable to cause great internal strife. Do you see my concern?
As far as the pragmaticism of which Lenin referred, that I’m afraid escapes me. I would recommend rereading the relevant works and if possible link it here and we can discuss it in relation to your idea.
As far as the idea itself regardless, it sounds like a pre-vanguard vanguard if that makes sense. I’m not sure how the logistics would function (getting several split parties to function when they are in fact split, this seems paradoxical to the necessitated existence of this proposed group).
I wonder if Brian learned anything from this colossal betrayal of trust
Context:
spoiler
On the subject of the 1990s US war on Iraq in relation to the US anti-war movement:
“The US had previously brought in Jesse Jackson to effectively negotiate the release of small groups so they decided to use more high profile “VIP’s” to convince Saddam Hussein to release the remaining hostages. Stephen Thibeault, a US Foreign Service officer in Baghdad at the time explains : Ramsey Clark was another American who was a part of this. I think that the consistent message… of these VIPs to Saddam is that he should release the hostages as a prerequisite for then de-escalating the situation diplomatically. I think that he basically was fooled as, in fact, the hostages were protecting him. How then did Ramsey Clark fool Saddam Hussein? He claimed that the American anti-war movement would surely stop any potential American invasion.
“Mr. Ramsey Clark emphasized that most of the American people don’t want war… Noting that there is a wide movement in its ranks against the war, he said that the US government is ignorant of the will of the American people regarding current events in the region in its call to war through the media. He added that the peace movement in the United States will escalate its struggles to prevent war in the Arab Gulf region.” - Al Thawra Newspaper; Baghdad November 12, 1990 It is said that Ramsey Clark backed up his claim with a photo of an anti-war rally a few weeks before. Yet, the weekend rally in NYC (the largest one in the country) had no more than a few thousand people present. It could hardly be said that this represented a majority or even a critical mass of Americans. Nonetheless, Ramsey Clark told Saddam Hussein that he could rely on American protestors to stop the US from invading Iraq. Clark’s purpose, as we would come to understand was to serve as a hostage negotiator on behalf of the United States government. In late November, world-renowned Boxer Muhammad Ali was sent to Baghdad for further hostage negotiations, as a way to build credibility with Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people. Ali, a world famous Muslim, received much respect on his visit. According to ex-CIA officer James Kolb, this was not the first time George HW Bush had requested Muhammad Ali to “use your status as a respected Muslim to enter into a secret dialogue…to try to procure the release of the American hostages”. (Ali had previously been used by the Carter regime to recruit African nations to boycott the 1980 olympics in the USSR.)”
→ “International con-man Brian Becker, another leader in the American anti-war movement, was a part of Muhammad Ali’s visit. His account emphasizes how much the visit was “a threat” to the US government and proved how “negotiations were clearly available as a means to prevent war.” Just because parts of the US government ‘denounced the trip’ does not prove anything at all.
This point is evidenced by a 1995 US Navy paper titled Persian Gulf Hostages: A Case Study in Terrorism, Diplomacy, and Strategy which details the United States hostage policy at the time. It had to maintain the facade of non-negotiation to “be tough on terrorists” while engaging in under the table diplomacy to release said hostages. The paper also details that while the US and UK publicly maintained rhetoric that they would bomb Iraq despite the presence of hostages, this was an empty threat. In essence, the United States needed the hostages released while also saving face. The reality is that these anti-war activists did the work of the US government by taking hard power away from the Iraqi government. This is regardless of whether they were acting on behalf of the US government (although, evidence indicates they likely were). Joseph Wilson notes in the same interview that:
“We were successful in getting one or two hostages out every time, and we would try to load up hostages onto every American who came out. It didn’t make any difference to us. The more, the merrier. If we could get 10 out with [boxer] Muhammad Ali, if they promised us 10 we’d go for 12.”
In December, Saddam Hussein let the remaining British and Americans leave Kuwait. We Are The Mighty magazine (affiliated with the US military) praises Muhammad Ali for “freeing the hostages” and notes that he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his actions.
Muhammad Ali (center) and the remaining 15 American hostages leaving Iraq on December 2nd, 1990.
Saddam Hussein gave up the hostages, his insurance against American invasion, based on lies. In January 1991, only six weeks after releasing the American hostages, under the guise of the United Nations Security Council an American-led coalition would begin a horrific bombing campaign and invasion of Iraq.”
A strike I admire since it is in opposition to AI generated content. One of the mods makes a good point when they point out Stack Exchange is a site which is designed around real, substantive, quality answers from real professionals in their fields answering questions with the upmost truth. They go on to explain that AI functions as a parrot (not unlike radlibs who follow the CIAs every word) uncritically forwarding information regardless of it’s accuracy or even logical sense, which contradicts the site’s current purpose in the information space. They go on to say this would reduce the value of the site to 0. I believe it would simply transform the site into Facebook without families. (All bullshit, no IRL social connection)
Regardless, solidarity with the striking workers.
