Re: [Marxism] Chechnya: what Proyect wrote back 1999...

["David Quarter" <davidquarter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Again, you didn't really address the issue of U.S. involvement in
the Caucasus. Just more of the usual demagoguery.

It's also interesting that you ignored the point in my post about
Tibet and religion (which you also clipped from your reponse).
 It certaintly demonstrates the contradiction of your position on  "oppressed 
minorities",
so maybe that explains why.

DOQ


From:                   Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>

> David Quarter wrote:
> >
> > You already claimed before that there is no justified concern for
> > Russia over Chechynia. You have also argued that the U.S. is in no
> > way involved in the Chechin 'conflict'  -- at least, the proof is non-
> > existent for you-- and essentially that the Chechin threats as per
> > U.S. geopolitical aims for the region is a figment of the Russian
> > imaginination. Apparently, either out of ignorance, or expedience,
> > you now decide to ignore the relevance of Musharraf's longstanding
> > cozy relationship with the U.S. (including the U.S. intelligence
> > community), highlighted by the author of Gazette article, in
> > situating the financial and ideological support received by the
> > Chechin "resistance" from the Pakistan secret service
>
> One doesn't support the Kremlin because the Chechens are getting backing
> from Pakistan. You need to judge their struggle on their own terms.
> Pakistan also supports the Kashmiri rebels to a degree, but that does
> not answer the question of whether India has the right to occupy
> Kashmir. The two situations have much in common actually. Kashmir was
> poised to win its independence through a referendum, but India refused
> to accept the decisions of the majority. Russia has acted in the same
> fashion in Chechnya. In both cases, the refusal to accept the will of
> the people has aggravated the conflict and opened the door for terrorism.
>
> The right of the Chechens to determine their own destiny was promised by
> the Bolsheviks. It is a promise that Stalin broke for reasons identical
> to those that you put forward. Stalin exiled an entire people to Siberia
> because he said they were on the side of the Nazis. You endorse their
> slaughter because they are in league with Pakistan, which is in league
> with the USA in some kind of vast conspiracy against the Slavs or
> something. This is the deadly logic of putting a minus where the
> bourgeoisie puts a plus. At least with Stalin, you had a workers state.
> With Putin, you are reverting back to the kind of bourgeois Great
> Russian chauvinism that typified the Czarist epoch.
>
> > Now what of the fact that the Chechin's "guerrila" leader (whatever
> > his name is) followed a similar career path along the lines of the
> > other murky characters that participated in KLA operations in the
> > Balkans (not just specific to Kosovo or Bosnia, but Macedonia, and
> > parts of Northern Greece) and some of the Arab "freedom" fighter
> > types that had previously operated in Afghanistan, the former
> > Yugoslav republics and now today in the Caucasus? Does it not
> > ring alarm bells for you in terms of the situation in Chechynia?
>
> The only alarm bells going off are those that warn against the kind of
> amalgam-making is what led Jared Israel to line up behind the Zionist
> entity. In his muddled schema, you have you have the CIA and Islamic
> radicals on one side. On the other side you have Yugoslavia and Russia,
> followed eventually by Israel. This is not Marxism. It is conspiracy
> theory mixed with pan-Slavism, and thoroughly repulsive at that.
>
> > Also which part of what you wrote in 1999 do you NOT stick by
> > today? Is it the part about "liberating dynamic"?
>
> In 1999, I had not given the Chechen question the attention it deserved.
> I have a much better handle on the history now. For me, the important
> question is not so much the character of the guerrilla army leadership,
> but the broad historical relationship between Russia and the Caucuses.
> After reading material on Lenin's last struggle and some historical
> material on how the Czars colonized the Caucuses, it is much clearer now
> that the position of people like Jared Israel, Yarker and Rozoff is
> utterly reactionary. It is Great Russian chauvinism cloaked in radical
> rhetoric.
>
> > If so, what prompted this change of heart?
>
> Partly being exposed to the ravings of an individual named Chris Doss on
> PEN-L who is even more smitten by Putin than yourself. At least Doss has
> the common sense not to describe himself as a radical. He understands
> that Putin is building capitalism. Why you find yourself attracted to
> this two-bit gangster is beyond me.
>
> > Since that be the case, since there are, in your view, near identical
> > parralels between the Chechins and the situation in Palestine and
> > Iraq and so on, why not add to the fold Kosovo, Bosnia,
> > Macedonia?
>
> Because Yugoslavia was a socialist nation under siege from imperialism,
> which was using secessionist movements as a battering ram against the
> last vestiges of a planned economy. Imperialism has obviously been
> successful and turned Yugoslavia into a neoliberal and privatized clone
> of Yeltsin and Putin's Russia. I know that these economic questions of
> socialism and capitalism can get very confusing, but you must be aware
> that when George W. Bush gives Putin a pet name of "Pootie Poot" and his
> predecessor likens Milosevic to Hitler, there's some questions of class
> interest involved. I don't recall Clinton calling Milosevic "Millie" or
> likening him to Abe Lincoln fighting to preserve the union. I have the
> feeling that the material I am posting about Lukoil's partnership with
> Conoco to rip off the Iraqi people is of little interest to you, but to
> many of us it reflects a common class interest between Washington and
> Moscow.
>
> > In other words, for you, simply declaring a country "socialist"
> > decides everything and therefore sweeps all crimes allegedly
> > perpetrated in the name of socialism under the rug.
>
> Well, at least we may be making progress by you accepting the
> possibility that socialism does serve as an important criterion. That
> being said, socialists should never be apologists for national
> oppression. In the concrete circumstances of the war against Nicaragua,
> the ability of the Sandinistas to hammer out an autonomy agreement with
> the Miskitos is a profound example of what socialists should aspire to.
> Lenin exemplified these values in his confrontation with Stalin. I urge
> you to read the material in "The Last Testament" to get a good idea of
> how critical this question was for the young Soviet Republic:
>
>

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism