Re: M-TH: Chechnya - the revolutionary answer
Well my position on Chechnya hasnt changed since 1995, though this list did not exist then. While Russia is not an imperialist country, we cannot condone its invasion of a former republic which has expressed its desire to separate. As for dividing Boris and Bill, the division goes much deeper into the character of a restored workers state which is now a miserable, collapsed semi-colony of the IMF/WV/Washington. No revolutionary movement in Russia will be worth anything until it overcomes its great Russian chauvinism and the danger of the RedBrown reaction. Insisting that Russia pulls out of Chechnya is one way of breaking down that chauvinism and ensuring that something progressive comes out of this barbarism. > G'day Chris'n'Dave, > > I'm with Chris on Chechnya (well, we were due an agreement, I reckon - and > I don't see how threatening to withold funds that only ever find their way > into aparatchik/mob/financier pockets is gonna hurt too many), but leaving > the little matter of murder on a grand scale aside for a minute, there's > some value to be had in anything that drives a wedge between Boris'n'Bill > and/or exacerbates the distance between Boris and his plentiful opponents > as early as possible (one can only surmise how another year or two of > corruption, mass suffering and bereavement might lift the Russian far > right's stocks - anyone know anything about this Barazov character?). With > great chunks of Eastern Europe evincing a left-turn, the time might be > right to have a contest for the Kremlin about now. Another embarrassment > for Yeltsin might be just the ticket, I reckon. His administration (never > mind the old bastard hisself) has gotta be living on borrowed time, no? A > western-inspired Russian retreat saves lives now and might just give the > Russian left the leg-up it needs in potentially auspicious times. > > Or am I speculating above and beyond the call of reason? > > Cheers, > Rob. > > > > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Chechnya - the revolutionary answer
G'day Chris'n'Dave, I'm with Chris on Chechnya (well, we were due an agreement, I reckon - and I don't see how threatening to withold funds that only ever find their way into aparatchik/mob/financier pockets is gonna hurt too many), but leaving the little matter of murder on a grand scale aside for a minute, there's some value to be had in anything that drives a wedge between Boris'n'Bill and/or exacerbates the distance between Boris and his plentiful opponents as early as possible (one can only surmise how another year or two of corruption, mass suffering and bereavement might lift the Russian far right's stocks - anyone know anything about this Barazov character?). With great chunks of Eastern Europe evincing a left-turn, the time might be right to have a contest for the Kremlin about now. Another embarrassment for Yeltsin might be just the ticket, I reckon. His administration (never mind the old bastard hisself) has gotta be living on borrowed time, no? A western-inspired Russian retreat saves lives now and might just give the Russian left the leg-up it needs in potentially auspicious times. Or am I speculating above and beyond the call of reason? Cheers, Rob. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Chechnya - the revolutionary answer
Chris: >> The way it achieves a pure and in practice entirely abstract political >> position is too subtle for Dave to summarise in English here? Dave: >Up yours too Burford Ah, the answer has arrived. In English. But what has this to do with the oppression of the Chechens by Yeltsin's government? --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Chechnya - the revolutionary answer
Up yours too Burford > Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 08:25:56 + > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: M-TH: Chechnya - the revolutionary answer > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > At 17:14 09/11/99 +, you wrote: > >Super reply Chris. Keep it up. > >You might note that the point of surveying the various brands of > >socialism in CM was to characterise their class standpoint. What's > >your's Chris? > >As for Chechyna, the LCMRCI has along with several other groups put > >out a statement in Spanish. When its translated I'll forward it to > >this list. > >Dave > > > The way it achieves a pure and in practice entirely abstract political > position is too subtle for Dave to summarise in English here? > > Perhaps Dave could bring himself alone to say whether he thinks progressive > forces should press the west to impose economic sanctions on Yeltsin's > Russian to make it disgorge Chechnya just as Habibie's Indonesia was forced > to disgorge East Timor? > > Or do I know the answer: Unclean! unclean! You cannot build a world centre > for revolution with messy compromises like that. > > Chris Burford > > London > > > > > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Chechnya
At 14:32 15/10/99 PDT, you wrote: > > >>Trouble with this theory is that, back during Yeltsin's first war against >>Chechnya, Clinton's U.S. backed Russia all the way. The imperialists >>know their comrades-in-blood when they see them in action. >> >>Walter Daum >> >> > >Well, it is never difficult to mouthe support for one and give it to another >in weapons. It happened throughout the Iran-Iraq conflict. At any rate, the >strategy of out and out Balkanisation was not drawn up over night. It has >been proceeding slowly over the last eight years. The imperialists are not >tightly oiled. They move from fault to bump to fault, slowly piecing >together a strategy. The strategic thinking of theirs is "praxis" in the >real sense of the word. > >Macdonald I really do not think imperialism can effectively be criticised by proving that they are always wrong or hypocritical, even if this is usually the case. There are contradictions within imperialism. Capitalism and imperialism are not hegemonic as a result of following a single conspiratorial policy. The latest twists about Russia seem to be a) the US investigators are seriously onto the case of the way IMF funds were salted away our of Russian back to New York by the oligarchs, with evidence linked directly back to Yeltsin, his daughter and son-in-law. The State Prosecutor has been forbidden to come into his office in Moscow. Advisers around Primakov are gathering the data, and it is reasonable to believe that ironically they may have received a nod and a wink from US operatives. It could well be that the US is finding Yeltsin so unstable that they might rather do business with a left of centre regime headed by Primakov. b) in Chechnya it is clear that Russia has asserted that it is its zone of influence. It is almost consciously copying the war tactics of Nato towards Serbia. It has loftily refused a kind offer from the European Union to mediate. The response of the west has been to find some clause by which to monitor IMF funds to Russia, that there has to be an upper figure to the level of armaments, and lo and behold Russia has gone above it in Chechnya! This is a far more prudent policy than threatening Russia with military confrontation if it does not stop its march on Grozny, but in the longer term it may have some effect in exerting US and western hegemonism over the world. It is in the interests of the the people of Chechnya but it is also in the interests of western imperialism. Chris Burford London --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Chechnya
>Trouble with this theory is that, back during Yeltsin's first war against >Chechnya, Clinton's U.S. backed Russia all the way. The imperialists >know their comrades-in-blood when they see them in action. > >Walter Daum > > Well, it is never difficult to mouthe support for one and give it to another in weapons. It happened throughout the Iran-Iraq conflict. At any rate, the strategy of out and out Balkanisation was not drawn up over night. It has been proceeding slowly over the last eight years. The imperialists are not tightly oiled. They move from fault to bump to fault, slowly piecing together a strategy. The strategic thinking of theirs is "praxis" in the real sense of the word. Macdonald >On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 15:13:10 PDT Macdonald Stainsby said: > > >[...] > > > >Actually, Bob, I'll get a lot of heat for this, but bear with me. I'm >with > >Russia on this one. Why on earth do I say that? > > > >Times change, and so with do strategies. The global ruling class has its > >strategy nicely set out today, that new strategy (among many) is simple: >in > >any country and/or region that may pose a threat, back reactionary > >"liberation movements" that can help balkanise (forgive the pun) the >entire > >plantet. While Yeltsin's Russia is nothing at all like the former USSR, >the > >Chechen rebels are much like the Afghani Mujahideen- cutthroat vile > >anti-woman butchers, who recieve their blood money for a "holy war" from >the > >greater Imperial powers. > > > >The German-led strategy in the destruction of what is/was left of >socialist > >Yugoslavia is to reduce the country into a whole series of weak useless > >client states. We should recognise (and, to the Sparts credit, when the > >bombs fell, they did) that it wasn't Kosovars vs Yugoslavia for the land >of > >Kosovo, it was Imperialism trying to wrest it away, vs Yugoslavia trying >to > >maintain it. > > > > The same can be said of Chechnya and Dagestan. These "rebels" would not > >have a single day of fighting to do if it weren't for the caches coming >from > >the Western powers. The contest is really between the US'huge military > >machine, where they use legitimate grievances to spark an illegitimate > >succession and those in the Russian ruling class/clique who want to >"prove" > >that they can keep the country together. There is a bigger long term >impact > >coming here. In the event that the next Russian revolution comes along, >what > >will the power base for the new baby be? the outskirts of Moscow? > > > >The Imperialist strategy is also working currently in DR Congo. Kabila >may > >only be a shade of what he was in his days in the bush with Che Guevara, >but > >that doesn't stop him from being on the bad list. All he did so far was >try > >to rest some extra concessions from the Imperialists before they carted >off > >DR Congo diamonds. However, that was enough to get the entire continent >into > >a war against him. > >What we will soon see in this case, is the re-drawing of the DRCongos map > >along "ethnic" or "ancient tribal" lines. In fact, we will just be > >witnessing the fracturing of the large and possible-to-resist state into > >smaller, weaker and dependant states. > > > >When we are going to wake up to this, and realise that the old lines we > >raised of "self determination for" just don't cut it anymore, I'm not > >sure. > > > >Here's hoping the poor Chechen peoples are able to get through their > >horrible situation quickly, it is ironic that this time around we see > >refugees fleeing en masse and no one says they are fleeing anything other > >than bombs. > >H > > > >Macdonald > > > > > > > > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- > > __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
