• Toni Widmo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPMEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    I think by that he means the Tankies that see everything in a black and white ‘NATO bad, everything that opposes NATO good, including Russia’ kind of left wing populism, and the ‘Russia is good old capitalist oligarchy theocratic fascism just like we want to do here so we should support them’ right wing populism. From what I’ve heard I think Zizek is probably a lot more authoritarian than me (an anarchist, and a leftist), but if he has enough sense to oppose Tankies then I grudgingly accept him as a temporary ally in the fight against Russia.

    • picard@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      It’s an interesting article.

      I do have some criticisms about how inevitable he portrays this stuff - I’m not sure we can describe any outcome as being ‘factually’ more likely, considering we don’t even know when the war will end nor what shape the peace will take. And the idea that Ukraine will simultaneously be taken over by a clique of oligarchs and western corporations seems a little contradictory - are they oligarchs or not?

      (And maybe an interesting observation that he describes the second world war as having one aggressor when it started, when in fact there were two - then as now, far right and far left were closely linked)

      But in general he’s right that the peace needs considering carefully, not only the war. In any war there is always a risk of what will come after - but these discussions absolutely need to be carried out by Ukrainians, for Ukrainians.

      And he’s also spot on about the need to fight the extremists at both ends of the spectrum - all extremists need opposing. I’ve been so disappointed by so many on the left who claim to fight for the rights of working people, but only when it suits them. Like, really quite disheartened when people I previously respected turned out to be supportive of genocide 🙁

      Thanks for sharing it.