r/LeftWithoutEdge • u/CommunistFox 🦊 anarcho-communist 🦊 • Mar 23 '22
Analysis/Theory Is “Whataboutism” Always a Bad Thing? Discussing the crimes of our own country as well as the crimes of others is not always an effort to downplay other countries’ crimes—it can be a test of whether we are serious about our principles.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/03/is-whataboutism-always-a-bad-thing16
u/destenlee Mar 23 '22
Anytime i talk about conservatives gutting social programs or other anti poor measures, i'm met with whatabout hunters laptop. Or her emails.
22
u/Nowarclasswar Mar 23 '22
sees Current Affairs
Hey speaking of whataboutism, what happened with him firing his staff for trying to organize more democratically and worker controlled?
14
u/Kirbyoto Mar 23 '22
There's a depressing number of leftists who like democracy in theory but not in practice.
6
u/DavosHanich Mar 23 '22
Look, he said he'd "take some time to think about it." What more could he possibly do? /s
11
u/Nowarclasswar Mar 23 '22
My favorite part is how we argues that he's not a capitalist cuz everyone makes the same amount of money, like bruh, socialism/communism has never been about making the same amount of money. It's about controlling the MoP/abolishing hierarchies (depending on your flavor)
0
u/MasterDefibrillator Mar 24 '22
socialism/communism has never been about making the same amount of money.
Theoretically speaking, it has only been about money. Marxism only theoretically identifies the problem as the workers not getting surplus, so from a theoretical perspective, a Marxist would be happy as long as the workers were paid the surplus.
3
u/Nowarclasswar Mar 24 '22
Marx had a problem with the structure tho, that's why the DoTP was susposed to result in classless, stateless, and moneyless society and be "the end of history" (defined as class warfare)
1
u/MasterDefibrillator Mar 24 '22
No doubt he personally had a problem with it. I was just saying that Marxism as a theory does not address it.
Which is kinda why I think the USSR happened. All they did was give the workers the surplus by giving the surplus to the state which "represented" the workers. But they didn't change anything else about the factories or how they operated or were structured etc.
1
u/voice-of-hermes A-IDF-A-B Mar 24 '22
Hence the fact that the USSR was not socialist (and thus also not communist); it was state-capitalist. Unlike most people who call themselves "Marxists" today, Marx didn't advocate for statism, and mainstream Marxists at the time the USSR was developing were quite critical of it.
1
u/MasterDefibrillator Mar 24 '22
I'm well aware of all that. Nevertheless, the USSR was inline with Marxist theory; because Marxism as a theory only points to surplus not going to workers as the main problem. It's a theory that is unable to attack the structure of employment itself.
1
u/voice-of-hermes A-IDF-A-B Mar 24 '22
The state ≠ workers. The USSR was not at all "inline with Marxist theory". That's just an opportunistic (very liberal, actually) misinterpretation, where those in power are just assumed to work in the interests of those the oppress (LMAO).
Were there still bosses who had a different relation to the means of production than the workers did? Of fucking course there were. They just happened to have "publicly" appointed roles rather than "privately" seized/inherited roles (in some cases, anyway; there was still a hell of a lot of private industry in the USSR too...).
Hell, those who formed the USSR didn't even think they were building anything socialist. They just thought they were delaying until real socialism could be built up in industrial Germany.
1
u/MasterDefibrillator Mar 24 '22
Were there still bosses who had a different relation to the means of production than the workers did? Of fucking course there were.
Yeah, this is my point. Marxism does not actually address the fundamental problems with capitalism, so you get results like the USSR. Marxism is a superficial theory.
There's nothing in Marxist theory that says bosses are bad, or the employment contract is bad. It only says exploitation is bad, which is superficial; naturally leading to interpretations where you just say that the state represents the people, the state gets the surplus, therefore there's no more exploitation.
Of course, that's nonsense; but that's the point.
→ More replies (0)1
u/voice-of-hermes A-IDF-A-B Mar 24 '22 edited Mar 24 '22
surplus ≠ profit
Part of the surplus has to go toward maintaining the business, paying for taxes and productive inputs, etc. Surplus is literally everything gained by the company (revenue, essentially), less workers' wages. So it's not just about what workers are literally paid in their paychecks, but whether they have democratic control over the money and resources they don't take home in their paychecks. Democratic workers' self-management is thus critical to the question of whether an enterprise is socialist in character, even in the case that wages are literally all equal.
1
u/MasterDefibrillator Mar 24 '22 edited Mar 24 '22
Surplus is a lot closer to profit than you seem to realise.
Part of the surplus has to go toward maintaining the business, paying for taxes and productive inputs, etc.
Surplus explicitly excludes paying for productive inputs. Remember, surplus is the value added by the workers that they do not receive in wages. The workers do not bring the "productive inputs"; the capitalist brings the productive inputs; therefore the cost of the "productive inputs" is NOT part of the value added by the workers, therefore part of the surplus is NOT used to cover these costs.
Any value added by the capitalist, and not the workers, is not part of the surplus, by definition. Taxes are a bit of a grey area, as they are not necessarily value added by either the workers or the capitalists. So you could maybe argue that surplus covers taxes, but it most definitely does not cover productive inputs. But I think it would be much more clear to argue that taxes are part of the value added by the capitalist, not the worker.
So it's very clear that a firm that just paid the workers their full value added would be a firm that marxist theory could not criticise; there would be no "exploitation".
1
u/voice-of-hermes A-IDF-A-B Mar 24 '22 edited Mar 24 '22
False. 100% false. Capitalists—in the context of contemporary capitalism—add initial capital; productive inputs only at the start, to get the enterprise up and running. Once that is done, EVERYTHING—every single cost in the operating model of the enterprise including productive inputs and taxes and capital growth and wages on top of profit is accounted for by the value produced by the workers. The capitalists literally provide NOTHING of value after the enterprise is up and running and self-sustaining, and even what they initially provide was extracted at some point as surplus from workers' labor. If capitalists did keep providing value, it literally wouldn't be worth keeping the enterprise around. The workers pay the capitalists, no the other way around. Like, where the fuck do you think the capitalists get the initial capital in the first place? By waving a magic wand?
Out of the surplus comes profit, operating costs, taxes, productive inputs, reinvestment into capital growth (unless it comes from additional rounds of outside funding, but the goal is always to get past that)...literally everything but wages.
If it helps, you can simply imagine there are no capitalists around at all (i.e. the class divide has been abolished). Then literally all value MUST come from workers' labor, at every step of the way, since there literally isn't anyone other than workers in this enterprise. In this case there are still going to be operating costs, there still might be taxes (assuming state hasn't also been abolished), there are still going to be productive inputs (e.g. raw materials), there is still going to be reinvestment into capital (expanding the means of production), etc. The idea isn't to abolish the surplus—it literally can't be, if there are still collective projects—but to give the workers full control over it; for each worker to have a full say over the portion of it they produce (equal or "democratic" decision making being the only reasonable way to do that other than extracting one's own portion of the MoP from the enterprise and going home).
1
u/MasterDefibrillator Mar 24 '22 edited Mar 24 '22
If A factory produces a chair, the value added by the capitalists in the production of the chair is the wood supplies used to make the chair, as well as initial capital etc.
No idea how you could argue that the raw wood supplies, paid for by the capitalist, is value added by the workers??? The value added by the workers is the difference in value between the costs paid by the capitalist, and the value of the chair.
Basic stuff. Therefore, surplus, by definition, cannot encapsulate costs paid by the capitalist. Like I said, there are some grey areas, but that's the general rule.
1
u/voice-of-hermes A-IDF-A-B Mar 24 '22
I do not know where you are getting your understanding of marxism from, but it's wrong.
From Marx, and from Marxian economists who have made it their life's work to study things from the Marxian perspective, disseminate and add to the theory, etc?
No idea how you could argue that the wood supplies, paid for by the capitalist, is value added by the workers???
You're taking a very liberal mindset of anything coming into an enterprise "belonging" to the capitalist, and there being a trade for workers' labor. This is a really silly notion of "ownership" rather than being a process model.
Let's take it nice and slow. Where do you think the capitalists get the money to pay for the wood?
0
u/MasterDefibrillator Mar 24 '22 edited Mar 24 '22
I'm not trying to argue with you that capitalism is good and just. I'm just pointing out to you that Marxism is a superficial theory that does not deal with the fundamental problems of capitalism. Which is exactly why you are now stepping outside of the theoretical framework to try and make your point.
Where do you think the capitalists get the money to pay for the wood?
That's a recursive implication of Marxism, not a theoretical component of it.
Marxism is an analysis of production, that analysis of production says that the capitalist contributes value, the workers contribute value, and the surplus is the value contributed by the workers that goes to the capitalist.
Do you disagree with any of these basic definitions? No, they are fundamental. Therefore, raw materials paid for by the capitalist is not value added by the workers. If you apply it reclusively infinitely, then you get to the conclusion that all value is labour. But that does not change the fact that Surplus is defined specifically and only as value added by the worker in a specific instance of production, not value added by the capitalist in a specific instance of production.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/5yr_club_member Mar 23 '22
If Current Affairs fails your ideological purity test, it's hard to imagine an organization that could pass it.
3
u/Nowarclasswar Mar 24 '22
Then you have a poor imagination.
1
u/5yr_club_member Mar 24 '22
Can you give me some examples of the quality leftist websites and publications you are talking about?
2
u/Nowarclasswar Mar 24 '22
itsgoingdown.org
crimethinc.com
unicornriot.ninja
libcom.org
roarmag.org
I could probably find more but I'm gonna go to bed soon tbh
1
u/DavosHanich Mar 23 '22 edited Mar 24 '22
Did I get deleted for some reason... I can't find mt comment now. lol
EDIT: fixed... not sure what happened.
1
u/Nowarclasswar Mar 23 '22
I don't think so, I can see it still?
1
u/DavosHanich Mar 23 '22
Nah when I hit your link button on my end it says it's not there. Weird... maybe just a reddit glitch.
0
u/5yr_club_member Mar 23 '22
If Current Affairs fails your ideological purity test, it's hard to imagine an organization that could pass it.
3
u/DavosHanich Mar 24 '22
I'm not applying any ideological purity test... the dude just fucked up and fired staffers who were trying to organize Current Affairs as a workers co-op. It wasn't his best moment.
2
u/5yr_club_member Mar 24 '22
I thought you were saying that people should not read or support Current Affairs because of the mistakes Nathan made. But yeah it's pretty clear he made some big mistakes, but it's also pretty clear that the world needs more quality leftist publications like Current Affairs!
5
u/5yr_club_member Mar 23 '22
Assuming this isn't a rhetorical question, he gives a brief explanation of the situation here.
I'll include most of the article in this comment, because I think it is important that people see what Nathan is saying about the situation before they judge him too harshly. A lot of what was reported about the situation in other media sources was sensationalized, misleading, and in some cases downright false.
I want to briefly explain what happened, what we’re doing going forward, and what you can expect from us now. There has been a lot of speculation about the recent internal conflict at Current Affairs and it is important to get some basic facts clear, so that readers can feel assured that Current Affairs is an organization that is worthy of its support. For some time, Current Affairs had been mired in internal dysfunction and tension, of the kind experienced by many young organizations without clear structure. In early August, in what I admit was a moment of frustration, I asked several staff members to resign or take different positions within the organization. The staff members declined to resign (I lack the power to fire anyone, which requires a process), and indicated that to consider resigning, they would like to receive a larger severance package than the two months’ salary I had originally offered them. I supported this request, and asked the Current Affairs governing board to approve as large of a severance package as the company could afford. The board ascertained whether the staff members would like to make an arrangement to stay at Current Affairs or leave with severance. All indicated they would prefer to leave. The board then approved a severance arrangement that would pay all departing employees and contractors the equivalent of their salaries from early August, when work stopped, through the end of the year (nearly 5 months worth). The total severance paid to the three departing staff and three part-time contractors was more than $74,000. (Nobody was asked to sign any kind of non-disclosure or non-disparagement agreement in return for receiving their sum.) This is not a small amount for a magazine like ours, and creates a significant fiscal challenge for the magazine going forward. But it is important for Current Affairs to be an organization that does right by those it has wronged, and my attempt at internally reorganizing our magazine was a failure that left people within the organization feeling justifiably angry.
I do not want to enter into excessive details of the conflict that led me to take the actions I did, except to note that it was a combination of dissatisfaction with the performance of the organization, a sense that several people were not right for their roles, and a dispute over control of the editorial direction of the magazine (specifically the relative decision-making power of business/admin staff versus editorial staff). It did not have to do with working conditions, labor rights, or unionization. I would never oppose an attempt to unionize Current Affairs (there had not been one), and we have a record I am proud of when it comes to working conditions: all full-time staff including myself are paid the same (currently $45k/annually), a request for time off has never been declined, and people set their own hours. Staff are not paid enough, and they work too hard, but nobody is profiting off this project. We are a small organization that depends entirely on subscription revenue and small donations to survive. We have tried our best to make sure that, given our limited resources, people are paid as much as possible and given as much time off as they need.
Readers have a right to expect that, as a leftist magazine, Current Affairs will act in conformance with its values and treat workers well. I want to guarantee readers that we will always be endeavoring to improve on this. We will continue to do the following:
Equal pay for all Guaranteed health benefits and generous leave policies No termination without a fair process and severance paymentsWe will also be doing the following:
We will be converting to 501c3 status, to ensure that profit-seeking will never be part of our organization We are consulting with labor organizers and other leftist institutions to ascertain and implement best practices Actively encouraging staff to consider unionizingWe will ensure that Current Affairs is always a good place to work, one where people are well-treated and paid as much as possible. I cannot undo the poor judgments I made but I can ensure that Current Affairs henceforth acts consistently with the principles readers rightly expect us to uphold.
I made some terrible mistakes in running Current Affairs. What I can promise readers is that these mistakes did not come out of a capitalistic desire to enrich myself, but inexperience and ineptitude. I will do better going forward. I regret that I damaged relationships with wonderful and talented members of the Current Affairs staff. I hope that those who are departing go on to bigger and better things. Their contributions over the years have made this magazine superb.
Our publication is small, and keeping a leftist media organization afloat is no easy task. We have been fortunate over the years to have a community of wonderful supportive readers and podcast listeners who have allowed us to be entirely reader-supported. This means that we have no corporate owners, no advertisers, no investors. We do not seek (and do not make) a profit. We survive entirely because of your subscriptions and donations. To continue our work, we will need readers to continue to have faith in us, so that we have the resources to put out a great magazine. The money we take in does not line the pockets of owners, but goes toward paying for the writing, editing, artwork, and production. We hope you will consider supporting us as we continue onward.
Thank you for bearing with us. I am confident that we will continue to bring you a publication that you can be proud to read and support. I believe that our magazine has important work to do in the world, and while I cannot promise that I will make no future mistakes in running Current Affairs, I can assure you that I take seriously the challenge of building an independent media organization that operates ethically and models what an alternative to corporate media should look like.
Nathan J. Robinson
Editor in Chief
2
u/Nowarclasswar Mar 24 '22
I do not want to enter into excessive details of the conflict that led me to take the actions I did, except to note that it was a combination of dissatisfaction with the performance of the organization, a sense that several people were not right for their roles, and a dispute over control of the editorial direction of the magazine (specifically the relative decision-making power of business/admin staff versus editorial staff).
So opposing actually relinquishing the MoP to the employees?
It did not have to do with working conditions, labor rights, or unionization. I would never oppose an attempt to unionize Current Affairs (there had not been one), and we have a record I am proud of when it comes to working conditions: all full-time staff including myself are paid the same (currently $45k/annually), a request for time off has never been declined, and people set their own hours.
Good working conditions and equal pay isn't really "socialist" imo, this is like equating the Nordic countries as socialist when they're very clearly just capitalist states with substantial welfare systems.
Yeah this whole thing doesn't address the root of the issue, the workers wanted control over the MoP and he refuses to give that power away.
3
u/5yr_club_member Mar 24 '22
Yeah this whole thing doesn't address the root of the issue, the workers wanted control over the MoP and he refuses to give that power away.
What is your source for this claim?
And I am not really trying to defend everything about Current Affairs. I am sure there are plenty of problems. But what I am also sure is that Current Affairs publishes a lot of excellent articles. And the company is set up in a superior way to the vast majority of other websites and magazines, when it comes to workers rights and ending capitalist exploitation.
2
u/Nowarclasswar Mar 24 '22
https://twitter.com/lyta_gold/status/1428011761635143681?t=ARA5FA8tAxNoh_5TJhxOxg&s=19
From the employees he fired, from my link above.
2
u/voice-of-hermes A-IDF-A-B Mar 24 '22
I'm not sure what you mean by "him", since this is article is by Ben Burgis, not Nathan Robinson.
2
u/voice-of-hermes A-IDF-A-B Mar 24 '22 edited Mar 24 '22
So there's the question of "What do we do about it here, in LWoE"? Like, what would y'all (or you in particular) want to see the mod team do? Should we disallow articles from Current Affairs? Disallow articles written by Nathan J. Robinson? Disallow them being posted without some kind of critical caveat (by Auto-Mod, or by the original poster)?
If the content is good but the source has some questionable history—or even if the content is bad—do we also disallow posting articles by e.g. the New York Times for discussion? Remember that a post in a sub doesn't necessarily mean (for some definition of "we", whether that's the mod team or the active participants or the voting users or all the readers or...) that we endorse the viewpoints therein or the past actions of the organization, but that we see a current, relevant bit of content and decide that it is worth bringing attention to and discussing; sometimes favorably to the bias of the authors, sometimes critically, and sometimes a mix or something else entirely.
So, who—if anyone—should be seen to have some kind of mandate to act? The mod team? The user base (are we just unhappy people in general are responding favorably)? And what would that mandate be?
(Obviously we're going to disallow some content, or there'd be no point differentiating this as a "leftist" sub; the question becomes where we draw the line and how we go about determining where to draw the line...beyond which we "cancel" so to speak, or utilize some other policy of moderation....)
6
u/9aaa73f0 Mar 23 '22
In a discussion is about principles, whataboutism is valid and within context.
Its more often used as an avoidance mechanism, to frame an issue in a different context, it splits the issue in two and allows participants to talk past each other.
Whataboutism results in participants arguing different problems and each thinking they have won, especially tempting for the losing side.
11
u/jg87iroc Mar 23 '22
r/politics users never even bothered to take 30 seconds to read the definition. It’s not whataboutism if one isn’t trying to downplay Russias actions when they speak about other countries crimes. It’s honestly depressing.
17
u/Kirbyoto Mar 23 '22
Whataboutism is just another example of pretending a common behavior is unique to Russia or to Communism. Same with "Kompromat" or with "Oligarchs". In this case, people pretend a Tu Quoque argument is something invented by the Soviets.
The thing about tu quoque is that it's technically wrong but not fundamentally wrong. For example:
A says X is bad.
B says A also does X.
This doesn't change whether or not X is bad (tu quoque fallacy) - but if X is bad, then A is bad for doing it, and could not pass moral judgment on B for doing it.
We also have several pithy sayings about moral hypocrisy - "the pot calling the kettle black" springs to mind. Both the pot and the kettle are black. The pot is not objectively wrong when he calls the kettle black. The reason it's considered a fallacy is because of the hypocrisy - an invert of the "whataboutism" argument.
2
6
Mar 23 '22
Why do Americans care so much about Ukraine but not about Yemen or Palestine (because they’re not white)
3
u/TheSovietSavior Mar 23 '22
The close ties the US has with Israel also plays a huge role in their neglect of that conflict.
5
u/Bleach1443 Leftcommunist Mar 23 '22 edited Mar 23 '22
I would disagree that it’s that simple. It may somewhat tie into your point but still. 1. The amount of Media attention this conflict has gotten gets more Americans attention. 2. This is a another nation invading another. Outside the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan the last time another nation invaded another was Iraq invading Kuwait in the 90s. The objective of this invasion isn’t totally clear ether. It could be regime change, it could be Regime change and taking some territory, or it could even be full out annexation. Yemen is a civil war which I think many Americans see it as less of a victim because it’s between each other not someone else. Civil wars are also far more common then an invasion so I think Americans are less responsive to it. This is the case with Syria as well. Ukraine is much easier to see and paint as a David and Goliath story. Which I simply just think resonates with people more. Like I’ll be honest I wasn’t alive at the time but I don’t think the breakup of Yugoslavia got as much of an outpour of reaction even with all the other similarities. It got attention but I’m not sure if it was to this degree. And in part I think it’s the civil war internal conflict end makes things more complex to understand. 3. Yes you can call this “Because their white” if you want. But I guess I would just say it’s the human experience of being able to relate more? Ukrainian city’s and Geography and overall religious faith is more relatable to Americans (Not just white ones ether Christianity is the main faith of most groups in Americans). 4. I think it resonates more with Americans. Most are taught in high school about WW2 so they may recognize some city names, Their grandparents or in the booms case parents may have fought in Europe over the idea of a nation invading other nations.
Short version: I think it’s more relatable/easier to imagine or put yourself in their shoes for a number of reasons (Some may be racist I’d argue it depends on the person). It links back to images and concepts from many’s parents and grandparents and our history books, it’s a less common type of conflict, it’s an easier to create black and white story and easier to understand then trying to understand the ins and outs of a civil war. Palestine is a whole different can of worms but I don’t think many younger Americans are angry about it.
I’m not justifying or saying Americans shouldn’t care or that it’s okay not to. But these are some of the reasons I think this is getting a lot more traction
1
Mar 23 '22
[deleted]
2
u/Bleach1443 Leftcommunist Mar 23 '22
I added that part after you likely read. I didn’t touch on it because it’s an odd and unique situation that I think has a lot of moving dynamics for Americans.
For some it’s just falling for the propaganda from the conservative and Christian Right. But frankly even the Democratic Party. It’s also not as clear cut fast Invasion with that same aggressive impact like Ukraine or Kuwait. Israel’s been very slowly chunk by chunk annexing Palestine so it’s massively less noticeable even more so when our media never talks about it. It’s only gotten more attention here lately due to the Internet. I’m keeping it real the Jewish factor again creates a muddy narrative. Fear of being labeled anti semantic, again history class and media telling us about the horrible things that happen to Jews I think makes some people hesitant to be critics. The Israel and Palestine is totally a David and Goliath story but I think many Americans ether have been convinced it’s the other way around and the Israeli is David (Again I think younger generations are shifting on that). Or see it as “Ya Goliath isn’t being very nice but I mean he was abused as a child so?”
1
u/Bleach1443 Leftcommunist Mar 23 '22
For some I think it is as simple as racism but I honestly think that’s in the minority for it to be the only reason. I feel I have a fair amount of educated people around me just not in the global events area. I’m like 90% sure if I asked most of the “So about that Yemen thing?” They would ask wtf I was talking about. Syria they would likely know but I’ve heard many express their sad about it but also super confused (Which makes sense there are a million different moving players and things going on in Syria.
Israel and Palestine really is the most simple and more well known to explain and again I’d say many Americans already have a position on that but the bad guy in this case has some heavy propaganda in favor of it and a victim narrative written for it.
1
u/Rookwood Mar 23 '22
Whataboutism is about trying to change the subject. It's not just talking about comparable situations.
1
u/TomGNYC Mar 23 '22
Yeah it's (pretty much) always bad, in my opinion. If you're going to have a good faith discussion, you need to deal with the argument on its own merit. Once you reach a conclusion to that, you can shift the ground but derailing the argument to another argument means no one actually gets anywhere. If you acknowledge the other side and say, "yeah, I don't like this policy, either. I think it should be changed to allow for A. B, and C", then I think it's acceptable to add some context by bringing up other, more egregious examples by other parties, but if you're whataboutting before the actual discussion then you're not debating in good faith.
0
u/voice-of-hermes A-IDF-A-B Mar 24 '22 edited Mar 24 '22
Good article. One also doesn't have to go as far as Iraq or Libya to call out the U.S.'s hypocrisy and the fact that it has set precedent (important for those trying to make arguments about international law, which "war crimes" often implies). In fact, we could even focus solely on the bounds of what was established Ukraine a decade ago:
- If one believes that Maidan (2014) was "a revolution"—or at least a popular overthrow of a government by a social movement—then one must, in principle, also support the choices of the Donbas regions and Crimea in declaring independence or re-adoption by Russia.
- If one believes that Maidan was a coup, then one must, in principle, recognize that a violent overthrow of Ukraine's government had already taken place, and there was no legitimacy or autonomy as it was regarding the U.S.-designed-and-controlled state of Ukraine prior to invasion.
- If one calls into question the legitimacy of a vote for secession by the Donbas regions and Crimea due to the presence of Russian military, then one must, in principle, call into question the legitimacy of such vote carried out under the oppressive control of the state of Ukraine as well, especially when its government allows and even condones the actions of neo-Nazis on the front lines of that dispute. (Also applies to "popular referendums/polls" carried out by the Ukrainian government which exclude those regions.)
- If one supports the funding, arming, and training of Ukrainian military and police by the U.S. and the "invited" presence of NATO troops in Ukraine, then one must support, in principle, the funding, arming, and training of Donetsk and Luhansk fighters and "invited" presence of Russian troops in Donbas and Crimea.
- If one opposes the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, then one must oppose, in principle, the repression, humanitarian atrocities, and violent attempts at reintegration of Donbas and other regions by Ukraine.
- If one understands (or supports) the liberal basis of the U.S.'s actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis in reaction to the Warsaw Pact, then one must, in principle, understand (or support, respectively) the Russian invasion of Ukraine in reaction to NATO. (For the rat children in the audience who will surely try to paint it otherwise, I personally do NOT take the "support" position here—in fact as an anarchist I don't support the "national interests" let alone "strategic interests" of nation-states at all—but it is important to understand the way that such illegitimate entities behave when assigning responsibility for events carried out by those same entities; e.g. it was entirely predictable how the illegitimate and terrible nation-state of Russia would respond to NATO's expansion, so said expansion and threats of expansion can very much be characterized as a direct provocation, "justification" being pretty irrelevant here.)
The amount of hypocrisy and the lack of principle of the vast majority of people taking place in the discourse over these events is very telling.
1
u/Kolz Mar 24 '22
I don’t know if it really counts as whataboutism depending on how it is used. The response to the situation in Ukraine is definitely an interesting lens to look at other situations through and I believe there is a lot of value in pointing that out. The key is not to do it in a way that diminishes what is happening in Ukraine.
I think the context matters a lot too… I saw someone bringing this stuff up in the comments section of a video made by a refugee describing what things were like for her since fleeing Ukraine, for example. I think it’s just not appropriate to bring it up there. So I guess, choose the right moments and right framing for it is all I am saying.
50
u/bealtimint Mar 23 '22
It can be a good thing, but often it is used to silence discussion