I’m trying to learn more about the Russia/Ukraine conflict. In the articles that I find that seem to be critical of Ukraine, there are a few that are right wing that seem to have similar viewpoints as what I’ve read on here or in the more leftist articles.
For example this piece from National Interest, or this from the CATO institute.
There are others that aren’t flagged as right wing that are critical, but it’s just got me wondering, why would right wing politicians/publications perceive these things similarly to how some communists would when the ideologies of both are so extremely opposite?
Disclaimer: I’m not pro-ukraine at all, but in my search for info that’s not super pro-Ukraine propaganda, this is the stuff that comes up for me
“All political power originates from the barrel of a gun” Lets suppose you and a group of friends wanna go someplace to eat, but you have different ideas where you wanna go. Do you whip out a gun and force them to go to the place you like or do you have a quick vote?
You act as if democracy was some impossibly complex, incromprehensible concept, but really its quite simple.
Who decides which processes are democratic? The people, or in an indirect democracy the representatives they elected.
By what authority do they do so? By forming a majority.
How is that authority established if there was no authority previously? Referendums, elections or some other kind of vote.
That is not political power nor a political decision. There is no polity there. You are mistaking a social consumer decision for a political one. The political decisions of property ownership, enforcement practices, and monetary custom have already been made in that decision.
Political decisions are made and enforced at the barrel of a gun constantly. All political power rests on whom has the power to perform legitimated, legal, violence. This is incredibly simple political theory that you are glazing over by saying ‘Oh any time a group votes to do something that is a political decision.’ You are performing the opposite function, a reduction of political power to absolutely unrealistic simplistic terms that have never, and likely will never, exist in reality.
Who decides if the referendums, elections, or other kinds of votes are legitimate? Who decides who can or cannot vote in which referendums, elections, or other kinds of votes? A ‘majority’ of whom?
Of course its not a “political decision”, but it is an example of a group of people making a decision. You can expand that to a larger group size and a different subject matter.
At which point does it become a political decision? At which point do you take out your gun? When the group size exceeds a million people? When the subject matter covers taxes rather than restaurants?
Its not unrealistic to say that these things can be handled democratically.
Who decides if the votes are legitimate? Once again, the people.
Who decides who can or cannot vote? The people, by less direct means. When organizing a referendum for example, without a proper legal framework, it might be unclear what the voting age should be. The vote of some 16 year-olds might be accepted, while that of other 17 year-olds is rejected. These things depend on the general consensus of the population, which likely varies within the population itself and isn’t explicitly voted on. This might make things messy, but doesn’t nullify the entire concept of democracy
And finally: a majority of whom? You guessed it, the people.
Then why bring it up? Your point was to contest the idea that ‘All political power comes from the barrel of a gun.’ If you believe them to be categorically different decisions then you are just wasting everyone’s time. The nature of categorically different decisions do not change with scale, if they do, then your categories are flawed.
Again, a decision is a political one when the it’s decision can be legally enforced by either implicit or explicit violence. That is what makes a decision one of polity. The size of it does not matter, if a million people debate what color a dress is that is not a political decision until a state entity steps in to codify and enforce that social opinion. The gun is already there, it is taken out by the very enforcement of any decision onto anyone who does not aquiese to the decision of the polity.
I’m not saying that democracy isn’t possible. I’m saying that all government, including democracy, is a form of authoritarianism. You cannot escape the enforcement of authority, it is implicit within the very nature of the state itself. The question is always who is the primary beneficiary of the state?
You say ‘the people’ control a democracy in this conception. That is a nonsense phrase based off of your understanding. If someone holds a vote that says ‘Income over 1,000,000 a year should be taxed (ignoring for a minute the intricate political economy related to taxes).’ and it passes, under your wibbly wobbly rules of democracy, there is nothing preventing those who make over 1,000,000 from creating their own polity where they then vote that the voting requirement is that you must make 1,000,000 dollars a year. These are equally valid polities according to you, despite the fact that one of them is in blatant legal violation of the dictations from the original polity. After all, you said no guns, so they are well within their ability to do this.
Having inconsistent and unequal voting standards absolutely throws a wrench into whatever democracy you try to create. If you do not have at least some form of previously agreed upon legalism, usually defined by a previously elected (or selected) central committee, that has authority over even participants who did not vote for them or did not exist at the time of voting, any democracy will inevitably fall into factional squabbling, through either genuine but repetitive good will debates, or bad faith attempts of sabotage. Hell, just watch the National DSA meetings back in 2019 before the rules were strictly enforced.
These are concepts and problems that have existed and been defined since before Locke and Hobbes, hell this stuff has been understood and discussed since Aristotle. Even if you don’t agree with those political theories, it would be at least be mildly interesting if you worked from a common understanding of them than whatever fever-dream conception of polity you are working from.