Category Archives: Government Oppression

From Crimea to this apartment on the Upper West Side to a family member in Moscowwhat Putin has wrought. Conor Cunningham

Its been three weeks since Russia invaded Ukraine. In that time, the world has turned its focus to the people who have been caught in the middle of the war, and the atrocities brought on by Russias president, Vladimir Putin. In many countries, citizens have stood in solidarity with Ukraine, and even in Russia, where people live under an authoritarian government, there has been dissent. Recently, a Crimean native who now lives in New York City put us in contact with a relative who lives in Moscow. We communicated with Dmitri earlier this week. He asked that his real name be withheld because in Russia any act of opposition toward the war can result in arrest and imprisonment. Below is our interview with Dmitri. (Editors note: This is the first of two interviews we will be posting in the next couple of days. Communication with a resident in Odessa, Ukraine, is in progress. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.)

Anna Conkling: What has your day-to-day life been like in the past two weeks?

Dmitri: People are standing in line for cash, but there is no cash. Google pay, Paypal stopped working. People started using local banks and local bank cards. There is a deficit of certain products. Things got a lot more expensive, fast.

Many people are fleeing the country. In my opinion, many people are just fleeing without a plan or any financial backup. Thats not a great solution, they didnt think things through. Just to flee without family or friends in another country. What would they do there? They are not really wanted there. I just dont think its the right decision.

Some people lost jobs, or international offices closed. But this is all coming from my perspective and the people around me. There are people who didnt feel anything.

This is just the beginning, in terms of how life is about to change.

Were you preparing for something like this to happen? Did you take money out of your bank beforehand?

No. Globally no one was ready.No one believed it to the very end. The Russian government didnt expect such serious sanctions.

Well, probably some people might have expected this. After all, they said there would be a war with Ukraine. Im sure there were projections.But I didnt know anyone who expected this at such a level. When everything happened, people immediately ran to the banks to exchange their money for dollars.But I dont think the average person expected this ahead of time.People expected political operations in terms of accepting the two separatist regions as part of Russia.

How has your business suffered in the past two weeks?

I work in the restaurant business. I run several projects in restaurant management. For now, we havent suffered too much. Several products already disappeared from the market. For instance, some alcohol brands, some types of meat and fish. Of course, these products will return to the market through some other means, but it will cost three to four times more. There are fewer customers now.

But Moscow has always been different from the rest of the country. Things have always been better here, and there have always been more opportunities. So mainly we are feeling this emotional depression and this stress. You can feel it walking along the streets. For the restaurant business, I predict that this will ruin many businesses and many projects will shut down in the near future. Were only just feeling what it will be like, and it will be worse.

What is the overall atmosphere in Russia like right now?

People are worried about the war, about the economic crisis thats about to hit us, and there is a divide right now among the people. I cant say to what percentage our society is divided right now, but I would say at least half the population is against this, and half who are, lets say, not against what is happening now.Unfortunately, there is a significant number [supporting the war]. Mainly they are from smaller regions and older generations.

There are people who are trying to oppose this. In central Moscow, I see a ton of police patrols. They are constantly on the watch to stop any demonstrations or some kind of meetings or gatherings. The atmosphere is very oppressive.

Many people who are against this situation understand that in the future, the Russian people will suffer from a strict regime.

All the sanctions that are happening now are not really going to affect the people who are for this war. They are more rural, they are not very well off, and have average jobs. They will continue to have those jobs. The people who will suffer are the ones who used the benefits of modern civilization. They are the ones who are now cut off. This is going to be a very difficult time for them.

There are a few so-called patriots who are gleefully writing the letter Z on their cars. They believe that the crazy ruler [Putin] is doing everything right. Id like to believe that sooner or later they will understand how far weve fallen.

Do you know people in Russia who are trying to get Ukrainians to join the military?

No, I dont know these people from my acquaintances. But I would say in 2014 [with Crimea] there were a lot more volunteers. Today there are practically no volunteers.

In 2014, there was a huge push for volunteers. There were posters, people talked about it. I dont see this happening now. Maybe someone in the very rural areas we dont hear about? But that would be isolated cases, not in masses.

Are there opposing views for or against the war amongst your peers, or is everyone generally against the war?

There are people who have this strange view: They are against the war, but for taking Ukraine under Russian control. They say, Of course we need to stop this war. But its about time we liberated Ukraine from the [Nazi] regime. Of course, there is no Naziism regime in Ukraine.

Some say the sanctions will only benefit us, but thats stupid reasoning. Among my close circle, there is no one who supports the war. Ive only ever heard a few people in my gym discuss the support for this. They say Its ok. Well make it. Of course its awful people are dying. But this needed to happen, its about our safety. We wish for this to end as soon as possible. But everything is ok.

Moscow is a quite liberal city. It was always a city for business and opportunity. So, masses in Moscow are not supporting this. Unfortunately, many are not in support only because their everyday life will suffer. Not because people are dying. Not because of the horror in our neighboring country, a country that has always been a brother to us and were always friends. People tell me, Its awful I cant get on Instagram or buy something. And I tell them, What about the war, is that not awful? They reply, War is war. There are wars everywhere. To me, this is almost the same as supporting what is going on.

What are you most afraid of?

Im afraid that our country will turn into North Korea. That it will revert back to the Soviet Union regime, except even worse. Things will be restricted. There will be constant criminal proceedings. People will be sent to jail, or even executed on a regular basis. The economic crisis could lead to famine, not just businesses closing down.

My other fear, or more like a wish for this not to happen, is a civil war. This is very possible. Right now, society is divided! People are literally getting into fistfights over what is going on in Ukraine. They start an argument about politics and it quickly escalates into a physical fight. Families are dividing because of this. People have categorically different opinions and its creating very intense divisive situations everywhere.

Im afraid in our country, if you know its history, changes only happened when there was blood and war. Im afraid that my generation, and generations to follow, will spend their lives convincing the world that Russians are not fascists. Because most of the Russian people are not like that. Most of us are kind, maybe not very outgoing or open, but we want peace to live in peace with everyone.

He [Putin] started this on his own. He went crazy. And now everyone has to live with it. Yes, everyone is afraid of him and afraid to do something about it. But hopefully, this will change.

What has it been like to have Putin in power for the past 20 years? Have the everyday Russians been preparing for this?

This is a long and complicated question. There was a moment when it wasnt terrible. When Medvedev was president, with Putin as prime minister. At that time, it was a more liberal atmosphere.

But then, before 2014 [when Russia invaded Crimea], things drastically changed. He [Putin] quickly changed the rhetoric and started severing relationships with the West. Covid was used to limit us, they tightened the screws on us. The machines of oppression started working harder and harder. This is the result of 20 years of absolute power. Especially the last three years that he spent in a bunker. I think his mental health has changed dramatically in the last three to four years.

After all, hes not using the Internet. Hes reading printed reports. He is being told the state of affairs, he doesnt know what is actually happening. They paint a pretty picture for him and he believes it and rules from that point of view. He was confident that the Russian army would reach Kyiv and occupy it within 90 hours. Convinced that Ukrainians will welcome them and greet them with flowers. He thinks the same thing about our country. He thinks everyone agrees with him and supports him. That everyone is happy.

Instead, he and the people around him hold absolute power. They lean heavily on the police force and rule through fear. The ones who can, leave the country. Others who oppose are arrested, beaten, or even killed. People tried to go to demonstrations or protests. However, now if I go to a protest I would immediately be given 15 years in prison and nothing will change at all. How many protests and demonstrations weve had in the past nothing changed. They spit on the public opinion.

And thats how weve been living.Propaganda is working well.

Is there a greater fear of Putin than before the war began?

Police are showing up at the houses of formally detained protesters and warning them not to go out to another protest, or they will experience problems.There are a few people who fled the country because of this. I think there will be more people arrested, more cases, and they will forever be under the watchful eyes of the police.

There is a fear of the unknown. The fear of not understanding him [Putin] and what he will do. I think even his circle cant understand or predict his actions. Fear about the unknown is always the strongest fear. You dont know what to expect, what will happen tomorrow or the day after. They are more afraid of this unknown rather than a specific person. Of course, the unknown are his actions.

Are Russian citizens afraid that no one will come to their aid if Putin increasingly starts harming civilians?

No one will come and help us. Just like no one is coming to help Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting on its own, no one is sending troops. No one is going to interfere because they are afraid of World War III.

No one is going to come and help us if they start imprisoning, shooting, and executing us. I dont know, close the country even. No one will help us. Russian people are not afraid of this, because they know this is already coming. Like I said, they are more afraid of the unknown.

Will people help each other? Yes, I think there will always be people who do that. But I think the civil war is highly likely.

What is it like for Ukrainians right now in Russia?

I have friends who are Ukrainian citizens. Some fled to Germany.I saw a few cars with Ukrainian license plates. I havent heard of violence against Ukrainians in this country, through the more trustworthy sources of information I follow.

We have no fight with the Ukrainian people. We dont want to kill anyone or destroy them.I guess people like that exist, you can see them post commentaryinternet trolls. But those people are stupid. There are a lot of people who are paid to do this, to troll, to create or instigate a conflict, to add fuel to the fire.It must be very difficult for Ukrainians emotionally to live in a country that attacked their country.

What do you know about the war from the Russian media?

We can read international news[an app] has channels that broadcast news. Of course, those are also not verified sources, and you really have to sift through Fake News. Not everyone in the country knows how to get around the [Internet] block.

There are TV channels and newspapers that report the governments official news. I avoid those channels. I understand there is no truth there.I watch things on [the app] and read news sources from outside the country that voice opposition. There is so much noise in the information now, and you really must sift through it to figure out where the truth lies. Sometimes it can be quite difficult and a lot of work. Whats it like to live with corruption? We got used to this.

But what is told on the main TV channel, this is not new, thats been happening for many years now. There was Radio Echo Moscow and TV Rain, but they are now closed. Do people believe what is told on the main news? Many do, unfortunately. Which is why they support the war. It is a real problem, one of the main underlying problems we have.

What does Russia need right now?

It will be important not to think of every Russian person as an accomplice to the regime. It would be sad to create a flow of information where a Russian person will equate to an enemy. I think it would be important for Russian people to feel some sort of moral support. That the world can differentiate between the people who are really supporting this war versus people who are prisoners to this situation. There are so many of them, at least half the country is so against this.

I hope people in other countries dont discriminate against Russians who fled. People who are leaving the country are businessmen, artists, people who are against this war, who are against the regime. They are not refugees from the war but rather from an oppressive regime.For the most part, they are fleeing a regime and thats their way of taking a stance against it.

To somehow harm the regime, things must happen on a larger corporation level. Ill give you an example that doesnt work: Netflix, for instance, left the country. So what? It will not affect the regime. The people who support the war dont care about Netflix. I hope companies can see a difference in how which hits they inflict affect the regime and which affect the everyday people who are already oppressed.

Is there anything youd like to add?

I can only add from my side that Russian people are not bad or evil. Were prisoners to the regime that we have no tools to overthrow. Ive made a personal decision that I am going to try to leave my country. I cannot be on the same territory as the people who are supporting this war. I have nothing in common with them. These are not my people. A true Russian is against this. If things change, I will gladly return and live in Russia.

I dont think the fault lies only with Russia. I think the U.S. and other Western countries hold some fault as well. The whole world has a role in this when they did not react to what has been happening in Russia for years. Theyve been ignoring this situation and that has a role in where we currently are. Everyone was after their own interests and now here we are.

Go here to read the rest:

Fear and Loathing the View From Moscow - Village Voice

The Channels interview was conducted by the television stations reporter, Seun Okinbaloye.

The Rivers State Governor, Nyesom Wike, apparently reacting to the Edo Deputy Governor, Philip Shaibus comments in the interview, said Mr Shaibu was being ungrateful to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which offered him and Governor Godwin Obaseki a platform to contest and win their second term in 2020 after they were barred by their former party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) from contesting the party governorship primaries in Edo.

Mr Obaseki came out in defence of Mr Shaibu. He told Mr Wike clearly that the PDP was not his personal property, and that in Edo, we dont accept political bullies and overlords, prompting Mr Wike to fire back at him, calling him a tenant in PDP.

Mr Shaibu: For me as Philip Shaibu, I have no plans now to leave. But for Philip Shaibu and his followers and followers of Obaseki that left APC to PDP, they all plan to leave PDP. But to where? For now, I dont know. We feel not accepted in PDP that is the reason we are actually thinking it is time to leave. But the truth is the governor had been appealing and you can see from yesterdays meeting. Some of us were not happy with the governors statement that hes not leaving PDP.

So, for some of us, we felt we left APC because of the governor not because we wanted to join PDP. We left APC because of the oppression that APC National Chairman (Adams Oshiomhole) meted on the governor and for some of us that hate oppression, we decided to jettison our relationship with the godfather to follow the governor to PDP.

Having escorted him (Obaseki) there, we have not been accepted into PDP and for us we are now telling the governor, it is either now or we leave.

Governor Obaseki has been your principal and youve been working with him for five years or so now, is it possible that you leave him in the PDP and go to another party. Is it possible that we see Gov Obaseki in the PDP and Philip Shuaibu, the deputy governor in another political party, is that a possibility because the governor has said hes not leaving?

Mr Shaibu: We followed the governor because of oppression, like I said, and we escorted him, not because some of us wanted to join PDP and we are PDP now, and we expect that we are integrated.

And when I said we, (its) not just Philip Shaibu, I am talking about Anselm Ojezua and the state working committee, ward chairmen and the executives, the leaders of APC then and all the well-wishers that left to join PDP because of Obaseki. We have been meeting, and we have said we need to be integrated.

Anselm Ojezua resigned his membership as chairman of the state (APC), the ward chairmen resigned, other executives resigned to join PDP. As I speak, theyve not been integrated. Were talking about harmonisation, theyve refused to harmonise, and for some of us, that means they are not welcome to PDP. When youre talking, dont just limit it to Philip Shaibu, it is not about Philip Shaibu, its about all of us. And like I said, I hate oppression.

The people (PDP) say they gave you a platform to win election and you came and you sort of pushed everyone aside, brought in your structure, (and) used the existing structure to win election without properly recognising those who have held sway in the party over the years.

The party was strong (enough) for you to recognise it, used it to win (the) election. These are some of the issues that they (PDP) raised against the leadership of Governor Obaseki and yourself in the PDP.

Mr Shaibu: We are not saying dismantle and drive (out) everybody and accept us. We are saying create room for X, just as we have done in the appointments in government.

We created space for the old PDP that we met, theyre commissioners. As I speak, in my local government, they have one slot. In Edo North, they have one slot. So, we are saying create (the) same opportunity for some of these our people, we are not saying all but some of these our people that resigned their executive positions, resigned their membership, give them some slots in PDP.

I see myself alone in PDP and I look left and right, I am not seeing the guys that asked us to move to PDP, they are not being accommodated. It is not about Philip Shaibu, dont limit it to Philip Shaibu.

Can you tell us who the people are? When we say they, who are the they that youre referring to, can you mention the names? Who are these people that you are talking about?

Mr Shaibu: If I want to mention names I will say the national because at the state level we have harmonised. We had a harmonised list as we speak at the state, old PDP and new PDP harmonised list. That list needs to be ratified by the national and the national have not ratified that list. Elections are coming.

Some of our people have ambition, some want to contest for the House of Assembly, Some want to go for (House of Representatives) Reps and the rest. Who do they go to, is it the harmonised or the old PDP?

So, as we speak, we dont even know where to go. We need the National (executive of PDP) to come and resolve these issues and theyve been moving the goal post from one end to the other and very soon electioneering will start. So, for us we are tired of these games. We want to know the harmonised list, is it the one were following?

Lets clarify this, Sir. Is it the national chairman that is in the way or the zonal leadership of the party in the South-south? Because if you say locally you dont have a problem, then we need to know where the problem is coming from.

Mr Shaibu: I would not want to blame it on the national chairman but I also will blame him because the issues are before him since he took over leadership and he has not called for a meeting to resolve the Edo (PDP) crisis. This crisis has been there for long, and we expect that the chairman and his executives would have settled down to look at Edo and to resolve the issues in Edo and he has not called, so, partly I would say the chairman and his executives.

If youre blaming the present structure there will be a question, this (crisis) has been lingering even before the national convention which brought Iyorchia Ayu.

Mr Shaibu: I said partly I would blame the national chairman presently because we say we (should) allow him to settle down? And I am sure he has fully settled and we expected that by now, this issue would have been resolved and thats why I said partly I would blame the present leadership because we expected that Edo would have been one of those first areas that they will resolve, but up till now, theres no way forward.

Weve been hearing the national chairman is coming, the governor has been assuring us the national chairman is coming. Last week he told us hes coming. This week again he said hes coming. I can tell you the pressure is much and for me I am not used to keeping quiet when my people are not happy because politics is about people, not an individual.

I will like you to also clarify this. There was an arrangement when you and the governor were moving to PDP for the purpose of winning an election and there was an agreement on the sharing formula, the position and the structure of the party. What was that structure that you agreed on?

Mr Shaibu: There were some meetings that I know I attended, there was no discussion on where and how things would be shared because dont forget that as at the time we came in everything was just fast.

So, after the election, that was when the governor now called everybody and said, now that weve won the election, now theres need to integrate because there was no time for all these integration thing and that was when the issue of harmonisation came but, unfortunately, the then leadership could not finish before the convention and we were told after the convention all the issues of harmonisation will take place and as we speak nothing has happened.

So, there was no clear cut definition of what was going to happen in terms of party positions, in terms of appointments. On our own, we feel we met some persons in PDP, we cannot drive them (out) but we are saying some people resigned as state chairman, 95 per cent of APC executives moved to PDP and we are saying give them some slots just like we did in the appointments.

The accusation is that you and the governor are not accommodating people that you met (in PDP). People have made an allusion that you came to other peoples home and they fed you and after you want to chase them from the house, thats the allegation that they are making.

That in fact, youre the one that is pushing them out. For example, where does this leave the former chairman of PDP in Edo State, where do you go from here?

Mr Shaibu: Tony Aziegbemi is the chairman of PDP in Edo state and hes still the chairman. We have no issue about him and there is no contest about that. Hes the state chairman and there are other positions that are there and we look at the harmonised list, the old PDP are still having majority of party executives.

The new PDP are having just few and theyre refusing those few and even those that we give commissioners, they still brought old PDP to replace those that were giving commissioners. We are ready to co-exist.

But we are saying to coexist, give some space to some of our people that asked that we should join PDP and resign their appointment. It is not about that we want to drive anybody, no we are not driving anybody, we want more people. As we speak were doing registration. Weve registered over 500,000 people into PDP.

So, when they want to blackmail they say you want to leave the party. It is not about leaving the party but we are saying we want to be a member of PDP in full and if theres no space for us, dont forget that there are many political parties.

Donate

TEXT AD: *100% Natural Herbs to finally End Premature Ejaculation & Weak Erection . Click Here for details

Read more:

Edo Deputy Governor's interview that got Wike really angry - Premium Times

Revolutions have happened repeatedly throughout history, dramatically changing what seems possible in a short period of time. Some of the great revolutions, like the French Revolution of 1789 or the Russian Revolution of 1917, overthrew monarchies that had existed for centuries. The Arab Spring uprisings of 2011 likewise rapidly brought down several decades-old regimes that previously seemed all-powerful.

Capitalism repeatedly drives people to this sort of action, even after long periods of relative passivity, whether because of brutal wars, economic chaos or other crises brought about by the anarchic nature of the system. Today is no exception. So although revolution is not immediately on the cards in Australia, it is nevertheless useful to understand why and how they happen and what can help them win in the future.

Importantly, revolutions dont usually start because people set out to overthrow the social order. Much more often, they start because of relatively minor grievances. The 2019 revolution in Sudan, for example, started off with protests about the rising costs of living, but ended up bringing down the government.

Sometimes, struggles emerge in response to some particularly egregious attack from the ruling class, such as the 2021 revolution in Myanmar, which began with protesters opposing a right-wing military coup. In the course of fighting for particular reforms, it can become apparent to people that more radical change is desirable. It can begin to seem like there is no good reason to go back to the iniquities and profit-obsessed priorities of the existing order once a mass democratic alternative seems like a possibility.

Mass struggles and revolutions therefore arent just a challenge to the power of the ruling class. They also have a transformative effect on the people who participate in them. Much of the time, the reality of powerlessness means that people feel they have no choice but to resign themselves to the system. When it seems like theres nothing you can do to change things, and politicians and journalists are telling you theres no alternative to the status quo, it seems the only option is to accept the world as it is and adapt to it. In contrast, when people get a taste of their own power in the course of struggles, it can expand their sense of possibility rapidly and profoundly.

This process occurs in many struggles, but it goes to its extreme in revolutions. One of the most striking things about reading accounts of revolutions is the descriptions of the effect on those involved. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian revolutionary, described this transformation during the mass occupations of the factories in Italy in 1919:

It was very necessary to see with one's own eyes old workers, who seemed broken down by decades upon decades of oppression and exploitation, stand upright even in a physical sense during the period of the occupation ... It was necessary to see these and other sights, in order to be convinced how limitless the latent powers of the masses are, and how they are revealed and develop swiftly as soon as the conviction takes root among the masses that they are arbiters and masters of their own destinies.

If you feel yourself to be powerless, resigning yourself to the system can make some sense: any other alternative appears impractical. When you experience your own power to shape the world around you, suddenly it makes sense to think about what that world should be like.

For workers used to being downtrodden and oppressed by the system, this is a liberating experience. Karl Marx summarised this process when he wrote, Revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.

Revolutions present a challenge to all the usual backward and divisive ideas of capitalism. In Egypt in 2011, sectarian religious divides were challenged and overcome as the common goal of fighting for democracy took hold. In Tahrir Square, occupied by masses of protesters, Coptic Christians defended Muslims at their prayers from attack, and joint prayers of Copts and Muslims were held. In many revolutions, from the revolutionary Paris Commune in 1871 to the 2021 uprising in Myanmar, sexist stereotypes have been challenged, reflected in the significant numbers of women playing leading roles.

Ordinary people have often found creative ways to solve the practical problems thrown up during struggle. The following is a description of the area controlled by young revolutionaries in Khartoum during the Sudanese revolution in 2019: Street outside: full of rubbish with plastic bags strewn across the roads. Street inside: clean of rubbishbags to put your garbage placed strategically around and young men with long hair and skinny jeans roaming around, picking up trash and encouraging others to help. Overnight as the crowds thin out, they wash the roads in teams.

City squares and other public places tend to became collective organising spaces, with people taking pride in maintaining them. The observer in Sudan went on to describe volunteer pharmacists organising medicine for those who needed it, blood donation trucks organising blood for injured protesters, and protesters organising cash contributions and bags of money left at the side of the road for anyone to take if they need money to get home.

When they happen, revolutions can involve and be led by a wide variety of social forces. For a revolution to go beyond just replacing the rule of one minority with that of another, however, it must mobilise the mass of the working class and involve the democratisation of the workplaces and key industries that keep society running. This means the mass of people who produce the wealth of society also making the political decisions about how it is used and organised. The working class uniquely has the power to create this sort of directly democratic society, run in the collective interest rather than in the interests of a powerful minority.

One of the key questions that a workers revolution faces is how to organise production. A mass strike cant continue indefinitely. There comes a point when it is logical and necessary to restart production under the democratic control of workers.

This transforms the workplace from a site of authoritarian control dedicated to profit, to one in which politics and economics converge. A journalist in revolutionary Germany in 1918 wrote the following account of workers control: The workers arrive on time, then take off their coats, read their newspapers and slowly begin work. This is interrupted by debates and meetings. The employers are as powerless as the managerial staff. All power is in the hands of the workers committees.

In a revolution, there can be a dynamic interplay between issues in broader society and in the workplace. In the Portuguese Revolution in 1974, the overthrow of the authoritarian government raised questions about the little authoritarians in the factories and farmlands. A movement of workers councils and land seizures developed that posed a direct challenge to capitalism.

Political developments flow the other way as well. You cant change society from just one workplace. Workers councils have been established in numerous revolutions as a way to coordinate across neighbourhoods, cities and regions. They can in turn help bring more workplaces under democratic control.

These councils are the basis for a form of revolutionary democracy very different to the capitalist democracy we have today. In contrast to the privileged, unaccountable parliaments of capitalism, delegates to workers councils are elected directly from workplaces and are directly recallable. They arent given special privileges or pay, but paid the same wage as a skilled worker. Directly accountable to workers, these councils therefore become a way for the mass of workers to exercise their democratic authority. First developed in some capacity in the 1871 Paris Commune, workers councils have been formed in a variety of later revolutionary struggles around the globe, in places as seemingly varied as Russia, Spain, Chile and Iran.

At the heights of the most successful movements, workers councils have begun to operate as a sort of alternative government, becoming a way to deal with the key political and economic questions of the day. This is the power on which socialisma society of mass democracy in which production is geared towards meeting human needis based.

Unfortunately, it isnt just workers who get organised during a revolution. The ruling class and other supporters of capitalism will also organise to defend and maintain their power. As a workers revolution develops, there arises a situation Marxists refer to as dual power, in which an emerging workers government competes with a capitalist government trying to restore capitalist normality. This is an inherently unstable situation, which the ruling class recognises as a threat to its rule.

One of the ways the ruling class tries to reassert its power is through force. Much of the violence associated with revolutions in fact comes from the counter-revolutionary violence that capitalists resort to in order to maintain their power. From the tens of thousands of revolutionaries murdered during the bloody week that suppressed the Paris Commune to the violence unleashed by Myanmars military over the last year in repressing the uprising against their coup, violence is essential for a minority to intimidate a majority. Their intention is not just to defeat the working class physically, but to undo the transformations in peoples confidence and consciousness that occur during revolutionary uprisings.

Just as they rely on workers to run their businesses, however, the capitalists depend upon the mass of rank-and-file soldiers in the military to maintain their authority. Any great revolutionary movement will tend to have an impact upon this rank and file, many of whom are recruited from the working class and oppressed by their officers. At key points in revolutions, key sections of the armed forces have joined the revolution and turned against their generals. In Russia in 1917, soldiers refusing to shoot protesters in February led to the quick collapse of the tsarist monarchy, and over the course of the revolution, soldiers councils were established based upon the workers councils, democratising the army and bringing the revolution into the barracks.

Direct repression, however, is only one way of fighting back against a revolutionary movement. Political ideas can also be powerful weapons.

Revolutions may challenge old ideas about society, but the developments in workers consciousness are always contradictory. Participation in mass rebellion might open workers to new possibilities, but all the lessons learnt through a life under capitalism arent wiped away all at once. Neither are the various political parties and media outlets of capitalism. The various political traditions that exist in different countries have a significant impact on how revolutionary struggles develop.

To counter this, revolutions must be both organisationally solid and politically well developed. The more workers who understand what will be required to defeat the old order and establish a genuinely democratic society, the better. This is the purpose of a revolutionary socialist organisation or current within the working class.

Unfortunately, most struggles of the past have lacked a strong revolutionary socialist current. The dominant political forces have been the various parties committed to running capitalism in some form or another rather than overthrowing it. Frequently, this has led even great struggles to stagnate or compromise, allowing the ruling class to reassert their authority and leaving the fundamental problems of society unsolved. Thats a key reason why we argue that we cant wait until a revolution begins to start organising a revolutionary current.

Not every crisis or struggle automatically develops in a revolutionary direction. But throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, weve seen how revolutions are as much a part of capitalism as economic crisis and war. We will invariably see more revolutions develop in the coming decades. These open up the potential for a society freed of all the inequality and oppression of capitalism. By building a revolutionary socialist organisation today, were doing what we can to equip our side with the political clarity and capacity to make the most of the struggles of the future.

Here is the original post:

What do we mean by revolution? - Red Flag

House bill on pensions an insult to public workers

House Bill 5054 must be stopped in the Michigan Senate. This bill would allow the Department of Treasury to fund a $1.5 billion pension relief grant program without any real requirements. … This bill is an insult to every public worker who has taken concessions, such as reduced pension benefits, in an effort to help their communities become financially stable.

This bill means municipalities who have implemented reforms and pension plan adjustments, such as bridging down the benefits, capping overtime hours in pension benefits, closing the systems to new hires and deploying a 401k-style retirement benefit, would sit by as those communities who have not acted would receive millions of dollars in unrestricted bailouts. House Bill 5054 is a reward for bad behavior and failure to be good fiduciaries of taxpayer money.

Here in Port Huron, we didnt kick the can down the road. We are proud of the hard work we completed by working with our collective bargaining groups to implement the above reforms to our pension system. We saved our taxpayers more than $80 million, which will be reappropriated for years to come preserving and enhancing core public services such as police, fire, and parks and recreation.

Additionally, this bill would only prop up failing systems, creating a larger problem for the next generation. The Michigan Senate now has the opportunity to send a clear message to municipal leaders across the state: if you want relief, you must reform.

Everyone supports helping municipalities struggling with the burden of unfunded liabilities, but giving grants out without any meaningful reforms in exchange for this financial assistance is a disservice to the taxpayers of Michigan.

James Freed

City Manager, Port Huron

Morality of friend and foe

Today the world is rightfully appalled and standing up to our enemys violent occupation of Ukraine. It is time for us to have similar outrage and action against an occupation by one of our friends, Israel.

Why? Hear Palestinian theologian Munther Isaac, … the occupation has made us both (Palestinian and Israeli) victims ... affecting the soul of many Israelis. They are, in this manner, victims to their own acts of oppression. ... I began to see that they, too, need liberation again, not in the same manner that Palestinians need it. This reality is captured well by what Kairos Palestine declares about the occupation, that it is a "sin against God and humanity" because "it distorts the image of God in the Israeli who has become an occupier just as it distorts this image in the Palestinian living under occupation."

Subscribe: Get unlimited access to our local coverage

Fact: In the past 15 months Israeli soldiers have destroyed more than 1,000 Palestinian homes!

We are called to resist violence and occupation non-violently, not out of a spirit of revenge, but in the context of loving (even) our enemies. Do you support our nonviolent response to Russias oppression of Ukraine? Good! Now I call for our own similar nonviolent action regarding our ally Israels violent occupation of Palestine.

Bart Den Boer

Kairos West Michigan

Not everyone can afford to suffer sky-high gas prices

So unfortunate that Jeff Raywood was granted his wish, "Gas prices need to be higher, not lower."

As one of the "haves" Mr. Raywood has no sympathy for those of low or fixed income. Higher energy costs directly impact the costs of living higher rent, higher food prices; and he would deny the poor the freedom to travel because of high fuel prices.

More: My Take: Gas prices need to be higher, not lower

Electric vehicles for the haves, and solar and wind power, would not survive except for rebates and government subsidies. Only the "haves" will be able to have the freedom to travel by car, boat and plane. Michigan as a tourist destination will only be available to the "haves."

For sure America's high rate of inflation and energy costs are the result of the Biden administration's and Democrats' "pie in the sky" green energy politics and policies.

So, what can one do to survive in these days of Trouble? Proverbs 11:4 reads, "Riches profit not in the day of wrath: but righteousness delivereth from death." KJV

What can one do? Turn to God, the answer is Jesus!

Meredith Nienhuis

West Olive

Read more:

Letters to the editor: Pensions, Ukraine and sky-high gas prices - HollandSentinel.com

SINGAPORE - There is no place in Singapore for violence against women, and more must be done to prevent such abuse and to support its victims, said President Halimah Yacob on Friday (March 18).

Speaking at a fund-raising dinner organised by United Women Singapore (UWS) - a local non-profit organisation formerly known as the Singapore Committee for UN Women - she condemned the perpetrators of such abuse and the harm they cause.

"Such violence robs women of their dignity, inhibits their development, and prevents them from taking their right place in society," Madam Halimah said.

"Often, it's not just the women who suffer. The worst victims are their children, whose lives are disrupted and future compromised."

Citing a 2019 survey jointly conducted by UWS and market research firm Ipsos, President Halimah noted that three in 10 Singaporeans say they have experienced domestic abuse, or know someone who has.

Even so, 40 per cent of the population are apathetic on the issue as they think it rarely occurs - demonstrating a lack of awareness, she said.

The Say No To The Oppression of Women dinner - or Snow for short - was held at the Shangri-La Hotel, and saw around 300 guests, including Minister of State for Social and Family Development and for Education Sun Xueling.

In her speech, Madam Halimah outlined efforts by the Government to protect women from harm.

These include instilling values of respect at home, reinforcing them in schooland making sure they are upheld at the workplace.

Punishments for offenders should also serve as a sufficient deterrent and be commensurate with the harm they inflict, Madam Halimah added.

The courts have been able to deal with sex offenders more severely since March 1, when amendments to the law kicked in.

Lastly, the recommendations of the Taskforce on Family Violence will help enhance protection for people who face such abuse and raise greater awareness of such violence.

President Halimah lauded the work that UWS and other social service organisations do, adding: "Such efforts must be reinforced by policies and institutions that foster a strong culture of safety and respect in our society."

Read the original post:

More must be done to prevent violence against women: President Halimah - The Straits Times

Breadcrumb Trail Links

The policies of Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government, in which Jean Charest was a cabinet minister, serve as an example for today's Tories

Publishing date:

Re: Jean Charest is the wrong choice for Conservatives, Michael Taube, March 11

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Modern Canadian conservatism, argues Michael Taube, looks more favourably at small c conservative values from an American perspective and, to a lesser extent, a modern European perspective. Theres more emphasis on the principles of small government, lower taxes, more individual rights and freedoms, support for privatization, capitalism and the free market economy, trade liberalization, a more muscular foreign policy, and so forth.

And although Taube lists some of these modern Canadian conservative values, he doesnt say when this modern era of small c conservatism began. But as a speech writer for former prime minister Stephen Harper, we can all safely deduce when he believes it did. And it is at that point where I disagree with him.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

So too, would Harper. In 2007, when Brian Mulroney received the Order of King Yaroslav the Wise, the highest honour the Ukrainian government can bestow, prime minister Harper introduced him in the following way:

He is the first prime minister who defended free trade. At the time he was vilified for the free trade deal. But history will remember him as the leader who set Canada on a path to unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. He is also the prime minister who took action on acid rain and invested billions of dollars in environmental research. His environmental initiatives won him no credit from the left or right, at the time. But now hes remembered as Canadas greenest prime minister, by no less than the current leader of federal Green Party. And this is the prime minister who came to power in 1984, five years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, determined to restore Canadas reputation as a reliable ally in the struggle against communist tyranny Under his leadership, Canada took a stand. We stood against oppression in Ukraine and elsewhere We stood with the brave people of Ukraine, of the Baltic republics, and the other captive nations of Central and Eastern Europe. Today they are free people living in free nations. And they are grateful to the strong western leaders who stood firm against the communists and their apologists. Leaders like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, John-Paul the Second, and Brian Mulroney. Thats the way it is with real, effective leaders. While in office, they set clear goals. Then they remain true to these objectives, and they see them through against attacks motivated by misunderstanding, misinformation, or just plain old political opportunism. And, in due time, they are recognized and rewarded. So it is with Brian Mulroney.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Harpers laudatory statement about Mulroney echoed an earlier one by president Ronald Reagan, who famously said: Brian Mulroney led Canada during a remarkable time, a time when conservative leaders dominated the free world. It was a closely knit circle; Brian Mulroney, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, and a U.S. president named Reagan.

Reading Harper and president Reagan, one gets the feeling that Mulroneys Progressive Conservative governments policy agenda sounds a great deal like Taubes list of what he terms modern conservative values.

For example:

Taube cites trade liberalization.

It was Mulroneys Progressive Conservative government that negotiated and implemented the Canada-U.S. and NAFTA trade agreements. It had taken Canada 120 years to achieve a GDP of approximately US$567 billion. With these free trade agreements, it took only 30 years to more than triple it, to US$1.74 trillion.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Taube cites smaller government.

It was, according to the Fraser Institute, Mulroneys Progressive Conservative government that recorded average annual per-person spending declines of 0.3 per cent, making him one of only two prime ministers in Canadian history to have done so. And Harper was not the other one.

Taube cites support for the free market economy.

It was that same Progressive Conservative government that deregulated the energy, transportation, and financial services sectors. For example, on the energy side, the National Energy Program was abolished, along with the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax, and the Foreign Investment Review Agency was abolished and replaced with Investment Canada.

Taube cites privatizations.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Well, Mulroneys Progressive Conservative government privatized or dissolved 39 Crown corporations and other holdings. Legislation was introduced and administrative changes implemented to eliminate or consolidate 41 agencies, boards, and commissions. Those initiatives, along with operational efficiencies, resulted in 90,000 jobs being removed from the federal payroll.

Taube cites a muscular foreign policy.

Mulroneys Progressive Conservative government was the last Canadian government to meet our NATO commitment of spending two per cent of GDP on defence.

However, Mulroneys Progressive Conservative government did other things as well. His government took the leading role in feeding the starving of Ethiopia, led the effort to free Nelson Mandela and end apartheid, and had a higher level of foreign aid spending than any government that preceded or followed his.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

That record of accomplishment is proof enough that Canadian conservatives have no need to import American or European conservatism. We just need good old-fashioned common sense Canadian conservatism.

Taube has endorsed Pierre Poilievre in the current leadership race because, he argues, Charest would be the wrong choice for Conservative leader. Hes not only yesterdays man, but he represents yesterdays ideology.

Keeping in mind that Jean Charest was a cabinet minister in the Mulroney government, Taube inadvertently makes the case that Charest is the right choice for Conservatives because yesterdays ideology doesnt look so bad after all.

The Honourable Charles J. Mayer, PC, St. Francis Xavier, Man.

Charles J. Mayer served as Minister of Western Economic Diversification, and Minister of Agriculture, in the Mulroney government between 1984-1993.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

More here:

Letter to the editor: Taube got it wrong on 'modern Canadian conservatism' - National Post

Russias aggression against Ukraine has brought widespread condemnation. Yet despite good intentions from citizens across Europe to assist in the cause, there are also traps of the past that are important to avoid.

DiEM25s Ivana Nenadovi gave her perspective on what the world can learn from her personal experience which has parallels with the current situation that is unfolding today.

Increased NATO involvement in the conflict is among the most popular calls to remedy Russias actions but, having lived through NATOs bombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, Ivana stressed her concerns.

I would like to mention another part of the war that is always brutal and never a solution more arms and guns are not going to bring peace, she said during DiEM25s How to end the war in Ukraine discussion.

Ivana is also concerned about the war of words that is happening at the same time, particularly from the left, and that disdain towards Russias government should not spill over to everyday Russian citizens.

On the left I can see this need to be on the right side of history, this moral high ground that we will condemn Putin. And of course we should do that, she said. However, what I would like to emphasize from my experience is that when we say Russia, or when we say Putin, it also spills over to the people of Russia.

There are progressive Russian people who are trying to fight this oppression for a very long time, just as we in Serbia tried to fight, and did fight, [Slobodan] Milosevic, and then we ended up being bombed.

This is one big injustice that I can tell you about, its not something that will help too much, but it is something that is perceived as injustice, especially because this whole region of Eastern Europe, ex-USSR, ex-Yugoslavia is very difficult for our Western friends to understand and comprehend.

And all of a sudden we have this big interest and geopolitical knowledge about this region, which doesnt really exist because of various reasons.

Above all, Ivana warns against being lured into further division.

Each side will have their own point of view. Of course, there is a history of oppression repression, and antagonism, she added.

And what we should do as an internationalist movement is to bring people closer together, to understand that war doesnt end even if I hope that it will end soon for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, I doubt it will happen. And even if a peace agreement would be signed tomorrow, war lingers on and has its aftermath.

And [judging by] ex-Yugoslavia or Serbia, because Serbia bears the legacy of Yugoslavia and everything that was bad and connected to Yugoslavia, its something that Russian people will suffer for a very long time, when Putin is gone and has his place in history books.

But we must be careful about more divisions, especially on the left, on the side where people are thinking [in a way that is] progressive or humanitarian and trying not to create more divisions that we already unfortunately have.

Do you want to be informed of DiEM25's actions? Sign up here

Go here to read the rest:

I lived through NATO's bombing. These are the mistakes we can't repeat with Ukraine - DiEM25

DetailsBy Native News Online StaffMarch 04, 2022

The Chinese Embassy in Washington D.C. has released a statement titled, The American Genocide of the IndiansHistorical Facts and Real Evidence, in the news section of its website. The statement identifies the definition of genocide and goes on to state that, According to international law and its domestic law, what the United States did to the Indians covers all the acts that define genocide and indisputably constitutes genocide.

The Chinese Embassy did not respond to Native News Onlines requests for comment.

The article is a brief yet thorough overview of the American Indian experience since the time of the Declaration of Independence and the slandering of the American Indian with the phrase Merciless Indian Savages. It further explores vicious, genocidal atrocities committed against Native Americans by the U.S. government and white settlers, and cites numerous U.S.-based non-profits, news media, and thought leaders on the issue.

Select quotes from the article include:

American soldiers saw the slaughter of Indians as natural, even an honor, and would not rest until theywere all killed. Similar hate rhetoric and atrocities abound, and are well documented

In 1930, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs began sterilizing Indian women through the Indian Health Service program. Sterilization wasconducted in the name of protecting the health of Indian women, and in some cases, even performed without the womens knowledge. Statisticssuggest thatin early 1970s, more than 42%of Indian women of childbearing age were sterilized

Sadly, to whitewash this part of history, U.S. historians often glorify the Westward Expansion as the American peoples pursuit of economic development in the western frontier, claiming that it accelerated the improvement of American democracy, boosted economic prosperity, and contributed to the formation and development of the American national spirit. They make no mention ofthe brutal massacre of Native Americans.

The article also explores the issue of Indian boarding schools and disenfranchisement, in addition to the failure of U.S. schools to properly teach about Native Americans as part of U.S. history. It presents former Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum as an example of this ignorance:

[Santorum] saidpublicly that We birthed a nation from nothing. I mean, there was nothing here... but candidly, there isnt much Native American culture in American culture. His remarks dismissed and negatedthe influence of [I]ndigenous people in American culture.

To put the deeply researched statement from China into context, we spoke with Perry Link, Chancellorial Chair for Teaching Across Disciplines at the University of California-Riverside, and a China scholar who spent much of his career at Princeton.

The article is coming out now, he told Native News Online, because of the controversy from the last several years over the incarceration and treatment of the Uyghurs in the northwest Xinjiang region of China.

In Trumps final days in office, Link explains, his administration called Chinas oppression of the Uyghurs genocide. The Biden administration has maintained that position.

It's a radioactive word, Link says, adding that using it obligates the government to take action. For the government labeled as committing it, its embarrassing. Link points to the Rwanda genocide of the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton debated whether of not he should use the G-word.

In the case of the Uyghurs, you have this proud Peoples Republic of China that is very worried about its international image. And, he says, it is deeply irritated at being called genocidal.

One way to fight back is to look at how Native people were treated, Link explains. Its a good report. Theyve done their homework. Americans should be embarrassed about it. Genocide does apply. All of that is fair.

However, while the U.S. is currently grappling with its pastand presentatrocities with Native Americans, China, in contrast, is not.

In fact, notes Link, this report is in part an attempt of the Chinese government to coverup and disguise the genocide of the Uyghurs.

Uyghurs are an ethnic minority, they speak a different language, and they are Muslim, Link explains as to why they are targeted by a government leery of groups that might organize and cause trouble. Daily life in Xinjiang is much different from the rest of China. Time is even different, as Xinjiang is naturally 3-4 hours later than Beijing. (All of China is in one time zone, on Beijing time.) Theres their time, and theres official time, so theres a bifurcation even at that level, says Link.

Link says the number of Uyghurs who have been killed is difficult to say, although he says the number currently in prison camps is between 1 and 2 million.

Theyre hoping to blunt criticism of what theyre doing, says Link. And it may work in part. Its a good report. Its a sorry history, and it will make a lot of Americans feel like yes, we have no business criticizing others. This is the psychological effect the report is aimed at setting off.

Link notes it wont work on all Americans, and that just because the U.S. government isnt squeaky clean does not mean Americans cannot point out the injustice and atrocities committed by other governments on other peoples.

The Chinese Embassys article ends by calling out the U.S. governments genocide and also its hypocrisy:

The slaughter, forced relocation, cultural assimilation and unjust treatment the United States committed against American Indians have constituted de facto genocides. These acts fully match the definition of genocide in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and have continued for hundreds of years to this day. It is imperative that the U.S. government drop its hypocrisy and double standards on human rights issues, and take seriously the severe racial problems and atrocities in its own country.

I sympathize with the Native Americans and the Uyghurs, says Link. "In a sense, they have suffered similarly, and it's great this connection is made Theyre comrades in mistreatment. Beaten underdogs whove been unfairly beaten. It gives them communal [connection].

To learn more about the situation of the Uyghurs, Link recommends China File and the peoples tribunal in the U.K.

11 years of Native News

Our news is free for everyone to read, but it is not free to produce. Thats why were asking you to make a donation this month to help support our efforts. Any contribution big or small helps. If youre able, we ask you to consider making a recurring donation of $11 per month to help us remain a force for change in Indian Country and to tell the stories that are so often ignored, erased or overlooked.

Donate to Native News Online today and support independent Indigenous journalism. Thank you.

About The Author

Author: Native News Online StaffEmail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Original post:

China Calls What the U.S. did to Native Americans Genocide - Native News Online

WASHINGTON, USA FEBRUARY 21 : John Mearsheimer speaks during a panel organised by Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA) Foundation in Washington, United States on February 21, 2019.(Photo by Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

Photo: Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

A minor squall on Twitter this past week may have largely gone unnoticed amid the larger hurricane about Russias invasion of Ukraine. But its worth taking a close look at it, because it illustrates something significant about U.S. foreign policy since World War II, and how propaganda works everywhere.

It started when Russias Ministry of Foreign Affairs the equivalent to the U.S. State Department did something unusual: It tweeted out an endorsement of a2014 article in Foreign Affairsthe publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, probably the most influential American think tank on U.S. foreign policy. The piece was by John Mearsheimer, a professor in the political science department at the University of Chicago and a prominent member of the realist school of foreign policy thought. You can understand why the Russian government liked it, because it was called Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the Wests Fault.

This led to a response from Anne Applebaum, a neoconservative journalist whos currently a staff writer at The Atlantic.Now wondering if the Russians didnt actually get their narrative from Mearshimer et al., she wrote. Moscow needed to say West was responsible for Russian invasions (Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine), and not their own greed and imperialism. American academics provided the narrative.

The et al part is important here. In U.S. political lore NATO was created in 1949 as a defensive military alliance against the Soviet Union and its allies. The reality was somewhat different. But for realists in general, not just Mearsheimer, the Soviet collapse and the end of the Cold War meant that an expansion of NATO could lead to dangerous conflict with Russia. Fifty American foreign policy leaders, largely realists, wrote to President Bill Clinton in 1997 that pushing NATOs borders eastward would be a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanize resistance in the Duma

To comprehend Applebaums glee here, her tweet should be seen as not just about Ukraine, but as part of a decades-long battle between realists and neoconservatives. And her rhetorical gambit is a favorite of neoconservatives, one theyve used many times before and will surely use many times again. Neither the realists or neoconservatives are any great shakes from a progressive perspective, but you have to understand them to understand U.S. foreign policy.

Realists believe that the U.S. should run as much of the world as possible,while being mindful that there are limits to American power and remember other countries(in particular, great powers like Russia and China)have their own interests. For realists, morality, democracy, the sovereignty of small countries, etc., are nice in theory but its nave to think they can ever play much role in great power politics.

For instance, in Mearsheimers 2014 article, he wrote that it is the Russians, not the West, who ultimately get to decide what counts as a threat to them. But of course the same thing could have been written about the U.S. before the invasion of Iraq. From a realist perspective, the only question about that war was whether it was wise or foolish for U.S. power, not whether it was right or wrong.

Likewise, in a recent interview with Mearsheimer in the New Yorker, Isaac Chotiner brought up the long history of ugly U.S. actions in the Western Hemisphere, and remarked, Were essentially saying that we have some sort of say over how democratic countries run their business. Mearsheimer replied with equanimity, We do have that say, and, in fact, we overthrew democratically elected leaders in the Western hemisphere during the Cold War because we were unhappy with their policies. This is the way great powers behave.

What makes propaganda propaganda is oftennot its lack of factual basis, but its bad faith.

Then there are the neoconservatives. The term neoconservatism wasnt coined until the 1970s, but it arguably has its roots in the desire of one U.S. foreign policy faction after World War II to confront the Soviet Union and reverse the communist revolution in China. Neoconservatives believe the U.S. can and must run the entire world, and justify the necessary wars with intense sloganeering about our devotion to democracy and human rights. This is sincerely felt by some neoconservatives, in the same way there were Soviet apparatchiks who were sincerely angry about the oppression of African Americans in the U.S. But the practical effect of this sentiment is near-zero: When the rubber meets the road, neoconservatives usually have no problem supporting the most vicious dictatorships if it serves their larger goals, and spend little energy fretting about democracy and human rights in America.

Neither school has much concern for basic justice or the lives of regular, non-powerful people. But the realists at least tend to be more tethered to the world we live in, while the neoconservatives consistently succumb to bizarre fantasies of omnipotence that lead to catastrophe. (There is arguably a third school that embraces an 1821 admonition from John Quincy Adams that America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. But its so weak that for practical purposes its irrelevant.)

In any case, Applebaums attack on Mearsheimer that his analysis sounds similar to Russian propaganda, or even inspired it in the first place is the kind of ugly, childish rhetoric in which neoconservatives specialize. For neoconservatives, if any external criticism of the U.S. is similar to internal criticism from Americans, that immediately discredits the internal critics. That argument seems to make sense until you think about it for two seconds. The fact is that when countries engage in propagandistic attacks on others, its rarely all lies. Indeed, propaganda often contains a surprisingly high percentage of truth. Thats because powerful nations are constantly doing terrible things, so other powerful governments dont always have to make things up to criticize them.

What makes propaganda propaganda is often not itslack of factual basis, but its bad faith. In this particular case, Mearsheimer was correct that the West had been moving into Russias backyard and threatening its core interests. Meanwhile, Putin has been vociferously making the same complaints for years. But obviously Russia doesnt object to a country moving into anothers backyard on principle.Just ask anyone who lives in Aleppo.

Likewise, in 2006 when Irans then-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a long letter to George W. Bush, his indictment of the U.S. was mostlyon point and indeed sounds a lot like criticism from Americas left. Yet Ahmadinejads words about the injustice of our treatment of prisoners at Guantnamo Bay did not carry great moral weight, since you could just go to EvinPrison to find how much Ahmadinejads own government actually cares about the brutal detention of human beings.

From the other direction, consider the attacks of Alexey Navalny, a prominent Russian opposition leader currently in prison, on Vladimir Putins war:

What Navalny says is generally true.And when he speaks about the aggressive war against Ukraine and the fact Putin is not Russia it also sounds a lot like the criticisms U.S. officials make in bad faith against Russia. But this does not invalidate what Navalny is saying even though Applebaums equivalents in Russia have surely claimedthat it does. (And like Mearsheimer, Navalnyis by no means a progressive hero.)

The lesson here is straightforward: Everyone who wants their country to improve should feel free to engage insincere, accurate criticism of theirgovernments actions. It is both inevitable and irrelevant that it will likely end up soundingsimilar to criticism of theircountry byforeign enemy governments. And those who claim the similarity discredits the internal criticsshould be ignored like the propagandists they are. To keep this in mind, youcan memorize this article, or just keep a copy of this chart handy:

Chart: Soohee Cho for The Intercept

See the rest here:

No, Russia Didn't Get its Propaganda From John Mearsheimer - The Intercept

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has split the hacking community, sending some of the most recognizable and powerful groups scrambling to pick a side to declare which has their allegiance.

In a tweet, hacking group Anonymous declared "a cyberwar against the Russian government" and has claimed to be responsible for attacks that brought down Russia Today, a state-backed news outlet, and several government websites. It also said it hacked other Russian state-TV channels.

Conti, a ransomware group with possible ties to Russian intelligence that attacked more than 290 American targets last year, declared its "full support of Russian government" and said it would use "all possible resources to strike back" at any adversaries. Cyberthreat intelligence company Orpheus Cyber reported another group united with Russia obtained stolen data from more than 45 Ukrainian government websites, and some of it is up for sale.

Motives that push hacking groups to pick a side range widely. Members of Anonymous have stated that their guiding principle is "anti-oppression," while Russian-aligned attacks may be state-sponsored. Pro-Russia attacks can also come from groups who feel pressured to operate on their behalf by the Kremlin.

"It's not entirely clear what the connection is between the ransomware gangs and the Russian government," said Brett Callow, a threat analyst at Emsisoft. "At best, they are working within a permissive environment. At worst, they are working for certain wings of the Russian government."

"Some of the actions of Russia's government just prior to the war shutting down the REvil gang or arresting them and shutting down a number of dark web forums and shops these cybercriminals are afraid that if they don't support the regime, they're going to be next," said Alex Holden, the founder of Hold Security.

Hacking groups may become targets for moving away from their usual financial motives for attacks. After Conti declared support for Russia, an apparent insider who objected to the group's support for Russia leaked a trove of internal chat messages and other files that Holden says "mortally wounded" the gang.

"When we see things like this, we are learning how in 2021, 2022, cybercriminal enterprises operate, so we have [the] ability to detect and deter organizations like this in the future," Holden said.

Moving forward, experts say that any further cyber escalation could spell trouble for those outside the conflict zone, including Americans. Groups like Conti could come back to hit the U.S. as well.

"They are a highly effective ransomware group, albeit one that has terrible operational security," Callow said. "They likely do still have access to certain U.S. networks that they have yet to encrypt, and they could potentially do that any time."

Newsy is the nations only free 24/7 national news network. You can find Newsy using your TVs digital antenna or stream for free. See all the ways you can watch Newsy here: https://bit.ly/Newsy1

Trending stories at Newsy.com

See the article here:

Hackers are being forced to pick sides in the Russia-Ukraine war - ABC15 Arizona in Phoenix