Dear Lemmy, as you may well be aware, racial hierarchies and colonial empires are doing good in these early 2020s. In particular, in the days of the war in Ukraine, it’s important to point out the fascist tendencies at play.
Fascism and racial/cultural hierarchies are on the rise on every continent, from Turkey to Brasil, to China, to France, to India… Fuck all Nations! Destroy all borders, and long live autonomous Communes!
On the Ukraine side of things, there’s a bunch of neo-nazis in the army, as well as more traditional nationalists/fascists. It’s not exactly a secret, and the former president was very close to these circles:
On the Russian side of things, there’s also a bunch of neo-nazis in the army as well as traditional nationalists/fascists. It’s not exactly a secret either:
Both governments have long fought against popular movements and anarchist/antifascist networks. Both countries have neo-nazi/fascist militias parading down the streets and beating/killing random people. Just like France or USA have them too.
Don’t trust me? Check out the wikipedia page on neo-nazism. Follow their sources and make yourself an opinion. It’s very instructive, although very incomplete. I definitely recommend to check out the Racism in Ukraine and Racism in Russia pages, too.
Please remember that when you try to paint one side of a conflict as the good anti-nazi hero. Nazis are fucking everywhere. Fascists and nazis have been running the show in much of the world even after WWII ended. Nazi collaborators were responsible for France’s war against the algerian people, and their grandchildren (spiritual or biological) are responsible for today’s new repression, wars and genocides.
We need to dismantle nazism and fascism at its root: the nation State and cultural supremacy. Yes, you should be proud of your local culture and land. No, that does not justify diminishing other cultures/lands.
All we exploited/struggling people have to stand in solidarity with other people struggling for freedom and equality across the planet. No border divides us in the international socialist/anarchist movement. We will fight against all Empires for autonomous communities worldwide!
PS: If you need more detailed resources on neo-nazi/neo-fascist/nationalist/traditionalist on the rise in a specific country/region, feel free to ask. There are chances i have some good articles/documentaries, and if not i’ve got ideas about who to ask.
Thanks for acknowledging this, the discussion on Lemmy would be easier if we started from this (honest) point rather than spewing propaganda from every side. Please note i also know relatively little about Russia: what i know i know from ex-USSR political refugees i’ve met throughout my life so i’ve got close to zero academic knowledge but plenty of anecdotes and homebrew political analysis (from an anarchist perspective).
That’s precisely what i’m saying. If you follow the links in my original post (two of which are written by russian collectives) they’ll even argue that Putin’s is a direct fuel of both neo-nazism (there were, i don’t know if it’s still the case today with this new State narrative, government support toward neo-nazi groups) and a revival of Russian fascism (Putin has given a lot of power to the orthodox church).
If you’d like to read more from both russian/ukranian perspective on the topics of neo-nazism and fascism on both sides (Ukraine/Russia government), i strongly recommend the articles published on crimethinc.com since mid-february.
There is a symbolic difference: Neo-nazism is a reverence to Hitler and his specific ideology, but fascism is an evolving beast and can take many forms. You don’t need swastikas or antisemitism to obtain fascism. In this sense, fascism is very much alive and well on both sides of the border.
Let’s take another example: France has strong laws against nazism and racial discrimination, but they are never applied. France is a deeply racist country with structural racism at play on many levels. That leads to contradictions like Eric Zemmour: the guy was paid to be every day on public television spewing hatred (against women, against muslims, etc). It only stopped a few years back when he was condemned for encouraging we deport all muslims from France (suggesting “it’s been done before” in reference to Hitler and the jews), yet the next week he found a very comfortable spot appearing every day on a private channel. The guy is now a candidate for presidency who like Trump back in the day all media advertise for. This guy is a pure product of French society, which on paper is supposed to stand for the opposite.
France is supposed to be anti-racist, but glorifies racist police abuse, or figures like Christopher Columbus or Jules Ferry. The law tells us little about actual political context somewhere. The situation is rude for antifascists both in Ukraine and in Russia, and i personally stand in support of them both against their respective government.
all true. but France is also explicitly sectarian. it uses this “laicité” concept, which is often mistranslated as secularism. but France is not secular - it’s a distinct thing.
it means the state is allowed to forbid religious practices. where secularism is tolerant, laicité is intolerant. and it is exclusively used against Muslims. it’s a unique legal and political justification for state sectarianism.
i find it mad that so few people know about it. the French politicians say “it’s just like secularism” and everyone is fooled by that.
Hey that’s a very good point but you miss some French cultural/political context! Laïcité does exactly mean secularism, and its legal basis means freedom of thought/beliefs for everyone: laïcité was formally established in 1905 when the State was separated from the Church (again and almost finally, except in Alsace/Lorraine where the Catholic Church is still part of the State apparatus for other reasons).
The 1905 law clearly states that the State has no business telling people what to believe or not, that this is a private matter between people. This is the legal basis for laïcité.
But since the 80s, some segments on the far-left and far-right have been involved in transforming the concept in public discourse to target it against muslims. It started with unionized teachers from marxist-leninist organizations (was it FO? not sure anymore) refusing to do classes to veiled schoolgirls, and bringing TV crews to the classroom to embarrass those poor kids. I don’t believe at the time it was presented to be in the name of “laïcité”.
Then this discourse grew in both New Atheist circles (a subset of the wider anticlerical movement) on the left, as well as in Judeo-Christian conservative groups on the right. Especially after September 11th, this discourse was instrumentalized against muslims by building a narrative that veiled girls are supporters of terrorism or that they advocate for Shariah, or that they’re submitted to Male authority. Many outlets even made parallels to Afghanistan or Algeria, but we’re talking about kids who grew up here (for the vast majority), only speak French, and have no ties or clue to what’s happening around there. As for male domination, there’s a few blind spots in this argument:
Starting with Sarkozy, this new formalized islamophobia was given a legal basis, which reused some discourse about laïcité but amended it so much that it completely lost the spirit. The new texts, instead of saying that the State must be neutral in faith/religious matters, says that agents of the State and public services must not promote religion in any way: this led to the ban of religious signs from public servants (which may or may not have been illegal before, but was certainly not enforced), which was then extended more broadly, for example for parents accompanying children on school trips. And more recently, it’s given birth to the complete hysteria about “burkini” and other non-sensical racist “controversies”.
All along, this was anti-muslim racism. It actually predates the situation i just described: colonization in much of the world (including french colonies) was often framed as a humanitarian intervention against uncivilized (male) barbarians hurting their poor women (which some political commenters have dubbed “white men saving brown women from brown men”). For example at the height of the colonial war in Algeria (1950s-1960s), the French government was organizing mass unveiling campaign (see this poster with the message: “aren’t you pretty? unveil yourself”).
Frantz Fanon has explained in great lengths how the colonial enterprise must destroy any sense of belonging or cultural identity in the colonized in order to succeed. I strongly recommend (all of) his books. If you speak french, Un racisme à peine voilé (“A thinly-veiled racism”) is a documentary from 2004 which goes to great lengths to explain the rise of the anti-veil sentiment in schools since the 80s. It’s a bit dated and does not account for the most recent racist developments but is still very much on-point.
One last point to conclude: newer, restrictive laws on “laïcité” (against religious signs) do not apply in practice to christians and jews, and even less so to minority religions whose religious signs bigots are unable to recognize. It’s not uncommon to see public servants (including teachers) wearing christian crosses, despite the law saying otherwise.
Thanks for the detailed explanation
I guess this is the most important point. Laicite was originally the same as secularism, but the idea has been strategically manipulated by politicians, to sow divide within society. I did not know that. (TBH I didn’t know the other historical points either)
I do see that pattern. Being French means being nothing but French. You cannot have a second ethnicity. France made a big effort to destroy any local identities (most famously langue-doc). The modern laicite is like a new vergonha, shaming the muslims, while creating a convenient divide within French society. A classic political strategy, old as the hills.