Do political pundits who deny the Russian invasion of Crimea deserve to be taken seriously at DU?
By all reported accounts, several days after the departure of former Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych from Kiev in February 2014, well-armed and organized military units began appearing throughout the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine. These units seized the local parliament, airports, harbors and other government installations in the run-up to a hastily organized March 16, 2014 plebiscite asking Crimeans to accept Crimea's annexation into the Russian Federation.
Russian President Vladimir Putin initially denied the involvement of Russian military in the seizure of Crimea (claiming that the troops involved were "local militia) but after Crimea was annexed by Russia admitted that the Russian army played a role.
Despite this in your face admission of a Russian invasion of Crimea, there exist some to this day who deny Russia ever invaded Crimea. Frequently, they'll point to the existence of prior treaties allowing Russia to maintain its pre-existing Black Sea fleet bases on the peninsula, omitting the fact that no treaty allowed the military to leave the bases and occupy sovereign Ukrainian territory. Some deny that Russian military ever occupied Crimea prior to the March 16th vote, claiming that it was local Crimeans who were armed with military grade weaponry and traveling in military convoys.
Needless to say, such denial flies in the face of common sense.
But these denials are not limited to mere novices. Here at DU, opinion pieces by authors such as Robert Parry and John Pilger contain flat out denials that Russia ever invaded Crimea, and that the "west" is to blame for the current separatist crisis in Ukraine. We are told that these pundits are "treasures" who have some special insight into the truth in Ukraine, as opposed to the "mainstream media" report.
But honestly--should we take these people seriously? Would we take someone who denies the moon landing or the Holocaust seriously? Would we take people who claim we weren't attacked by hijacked airliners on 9-11 seriously? Those types of opinions typically are sent off to creative speculation.
But because the names Robert Parry and John Pilger are attached, journalists who at one point in their career had respectability, we are told that these denials in the face of facts are acceptable, and we are the ones who need to "wake up."
I'm not so sure of that.
= new reply since forum marked as read
The Pilger piece got over 70 recs here at DU, although I'm hoping it was just for its "Duh!" generalized premise ("Fascism is bad, m'kay?"
and not the poison pill of grossly distorted facts contained within it.
I like knowing who doesn't give a fuck about lgbt civil rights.
It's interesting that the posters who love this journalist are never seen in threads discussing lgbt rights...so one has to assume they don't give a fuck either.
Last edited Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:11 AM - Edit history (1)
Was it not social acceptance of the denial of civil rights that preambled income inequality? And the idea that some people don't deserve equal treatment with the privileged is not a form of economic darwinism?Watching how 51% of the people's concerns are mocked and their rights to controlling their own bodies, such as slaves never had, has been an eye opener. Voting rights that affect POC to keep them out of competing with the privileged, is 'old hat' now, only the civil liberties of those who already had those protections, thus privileged, matter now.
It's like what Tim Wise said:
Whiteness, NSA Spying and the Irony of Racial Privilege
Tim Wise - June 19, 2013
That said, I also must admit to a certain nonchalance in the face of the recent revelations about the National Security Agency’s snooping into phone records, and the dust-up over the leaking of the NSA’s program by Ed Snowden. And as I tried to figure out why I wasn’t more animated upon hearing the revelations — and, likewise, why so many others were — it struck me. Those who are especially chapped about the program, about the very concept of their government keeping tabs on them — in effect profiling them as potential criminals, as terrorists — are almost entirely those for whom shit like this is new: people who have never before been presumed criminal, up to no good, or worthy of suspicion.
In short, they are mostly white. And male. And middle-class or above. And most assuredly not Muslim.
And although I too am those things, perhaps because I work mostly on issues of racism, white privilege and racial inequity — and because my mentors and teachers have principally been people of color, for whom things like this are distressingly familiar — the latest confirmation that the U.S. is far from the nation we were sold as children is hardly Earth-shattering. After all, it is only those who have had the relative luxury of remaining in a child-like, innocent state with regard to the empire in which they reside who can be driven to such distraction by something that, compared to what lots of folks deal with every day, seems pretty weak tea...
http://www.timwise.org/2013/06/whiteness-nsa-spying-and-the-irony-of-racial-privilege/
This refrain is now old with many of us as we see people thumbing their noses down at the 'lesser people.' Wise has issues with the Democratic Party as Chris Hedges does with pornography, because in the end, being a progressive and a liberal is about individual lives.
That is left out by pundits celebrated by Putin supporters in online forums, cable shows by Republicans, and talk radio pundits like Alex Jones. The latter come out actively against the government that supports the rights of women and the poor against the privileged and powerful. They have determined what their place will be in the society they want - and it's not what Democrats want, so we must be eliminated totally.
Those civil rights issues are the dirty underbelly of empire and privilege and how the population is felled by the status quo. Dismiss one civil right, and they'll go after all of them. And some of them claim to be from the 'left' as some now define it. It's not how I define it, but I see a pattern. Tell me how this is not the way that some are defining the Democratic Party and its followers:
Lumpenproletariat is a term that was originally coined by Karl Marx to describe that layer of the working class that is unlikely ever to achieve class consciousness and is therefore lost to socially useful production, of no use to the revolutionary struggle, and perhaps even an impediment to the realization of a classless society.[1] The word is derived from the German word Lumpenproletarier, a word literally meaning "miscreant" as well as "rag". The term proletarian was first defined by Marx and Friedrich Engels in The German Ideology (1845) and later elaborated on in other works by Marx. The Marxist Internet Archive writes that "this term identifies the class of outcast, degenerated and submerged elements that make up a section of the population of industrial centers" which include "beggars, prostitutes, gangsters, racketeers, swindlers, petty criminals, tramps, chronic unemployed or unemployables, persons who have been cast out by industry, and all sorts of declassed, degraded or degenerated elements."[2]
In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (1852), Marx gives this description of the lumpenproletariat:
Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux [pimps], brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars — in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème.[3]
In the Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx rhetorically describes the lumpenproletariat as a "class fraction" that constituted the political power base for Louis Bonaparte of France in 1848. In this sense, Marx argued that Bonaparte was able to place himself above the two main classes, the proletariat and bourgeoisie, by resorting to the "lumpenproletariat" as an apparently independent base of power, while in fact advancing the material interests of the "finance aristocracy".
For rhetorical purposes, Marx identifies Louis Napoleon himself as being like a member of the lumpenproletariat insofar as, being a member of the finance aristocracy, he has no direct interest in productive enterprises.[4] This is a rhetorical flourish, however, which equates the lumpenproletariat, the rentier class, and the apex of class society as equivalent members of the class of those with no role in useful production...[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpen_proletariat
'All Men (women) Are Created Equal' isn't in those perjoratives applied to victims of class warfare. They don't count as they are unwilling to give up all they are left with, their very lives for the guiding hand of the intellectual elitists. Nor do the social policies promoted by progressives to mitigate the genocide committed upon them matter. They are denied humanity for what was done to them, despite the identity politics used to claim they are part of the cadre. If they dare squeak about the voting to support the pillars of democratic socialism such as are in the New Deal and fought for by Bernie Sanders, they are supporting continuing evil, supposedly. Like living an imperfect life isn't worth it. Conveniently given advice by those who are not on the chopping block.
Their lives, thus their survival as 'losers' don't matter in the face of ideology, only the revolution matters. The one ending up creating a system of feudalism with a different name, with little worker input. Evolution of society as preached from feudalism to the paradise of communism, sans any talk of civil rights, ends up being no different than the Biblical view of 'every man with his own vineyard' as the ultimate society. Don't bring up the uncomfortable issue of who is going to be doing the childbearing and menial work. Social stratification benefits those at the top, not the rest. Let's not talk about what enables and sweeps that under the rug.
You never answer my replies, but you struck a chord, and thus I answered with my take on just how screwed up the support, some of it coming from a misguided vision of Putin remaking the USSR or a communist society based on Marx coming to pass. That is not what Putin is doing. He's an oligarch and friend of oligarchs and if people would open their eyes up to that fact, they might see him as the fascist that he is, no matter how he presents himself.
Russia is now an experiment melding religion, corporate and state power working together for the benefit of the corporations and destroying civil society and protections. That is the way that Mussolini termed what he was doing with Fascism in Italy.
The West has successfully combined corporations, oligarchs, monarchs and strong state government to afford individual rights and freedoms to its citizenry, but that is going to fall in the face of what is now embraced in the USA and the Anglosphere, and more directly by ISIS.
The voices against the Democratic Party, IMHO, are not for democratic, accountable government but for a simplistic vision no one will be able to ignore when they destroy the state. It will seamlessly control everything necessary to live. Yes, that is a pessimistic view and I am still working these things out in my mind, seeking to find a way to define my position on maintaining the living. I'm a 'WIP.'
There is no real separation of powers between the judicial & government branches. Constitutional court judges are easily dismissed for "oath violations".
The judicial system of Ukraine is outlined in the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine.[1] Before this there was no notion of judicial review nor any Supreme Court since 1991's Ukrainian independence.[2] Inherited most of its principles from the court system of the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian SSR, the court system of Ukraine is slowly being restructured.
Although judicial independence exist in principle, in practice there is little separation of juridical and political powers. Judges are subjected to pressure by political and business interests.[3] Ukraine's court system is widely regarded as corrupt.[4]
<snip>
Juridical corruption
"There could even be cases of the revocation of investment, because legal uncertainty is very deep, and the actions of regional authorities are willful."
German Ambassador to Ukraine Hans-Jurgen Heimsoeth, late September 2011[37]
See also: Judicial system of Ukraine, Mazhory and Murder of Oksana Makar
Ukrainian politicians and analysts have described the system of justice in Ukraine as "rotten to the core"[38][39] and have complained about political pressure put on judges and corruption.[40] Independent lawyers and human rights activists have complained Ukrainian judges regularly come under pressure to hand down a certain verdict.[41] Ukraine's court system is widely regarded as corrupt.[42] A Ukrainian Justice Ministry survey in 2009 revealed that only 10% of respondents trusted the nation’s court system. Less than 30% believed that it was still possible to get a fair trial.[38]
Although judicial independence exists in principle, in practise there is little separation of juridical and political powers. Judges are subjected to pressure by political and business interests.[43]
An August 2014 Ukrayinska Pravda article claimed that the brides judges receive ("from a few to many thousands of dollars" are sometimes much higher their salaries (of 915 US dollar).[44] (An example of this could be) on May 22, 2012 Volodymyr Rokytskyi, Deputy Head of Ukraine's Security Service, was photographed in public wearing a US$32,000 luxury wristwatch despite the fact that its price amounts to his yearly official income. The instance happened at a joint Ukrainian-American event dedicated to fighting illegal drugs.[45] Ukrainian judges have been arrested while taking bribes.[46]
Critics have also complained that officials and their children (the latter ones are known as "mazhory"[47]) receive favourable sentences compared with common citizens.[48][49]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine#Juridical_corruption
There are several politicians currently under investigation, mostly those who did well in vote counts in the East.
