Russian Opposition Leader Navalny Announces Hunger Strike

[Bear Stearns]

Nothing inherently wrong or racist about nationalism.

Now ultranationalism on the other hand is a blight upon this Earth and the spawn of evil which should be destroyed whenever it rears it's ugly face.

Nah, Nationalism in and of itself is pretty bad.

Yeah, fuck any people who ever wanted self-determination or independence. They should have been anti-nationalist and accepted the imperial boot up their ass

[Bear Stearns]

Nah, Nationalism in and of itself is pretty bad.

There are different flavors and definitions of "nationalism". As a French growing up in an imperialist country, I used to oppose "nationalism" in general (I even got in trouble in high school for answering "citizen of the world" when asked for my nationality...). And I'm still at core an internationalist, wanting a Universal Republic as the Commune (Paris 1871) called for. But after discussing with many Latin American leftists, I grew to appreciate their form of "nationalism", which not an imperialist one, only one grounded in popular sovereignty and no longer being plundered by foreign countries (first Spain/Brazil and then USA) and their corporations.

It no longer strikes me as paradoxical that the most internationalist Constitution I know about, the one of Ecuador, that proclaim "universal citizenship", "no human being can be considered illegal to due their condition of being migrant" and "work towards the abolition of the status of foreigner" was written by a political party called... Patria Altiva i Soberana (Proud and Sovereign Homeland).

But we are going away from the subject of the thread so I'll stop there

>internationalist
>anti-imperialist

pick one

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

I stand with future Russian President Alexei Navalny.

Putin is bad but I'll take him any day over Navalny the fascist. Not in the hyperbolic sense, in the super-racist and imperialist sense.

[Kowani]

This does not matter

[Salus Maior]

Nah, Nationalism in and of itself is pretty bad.

Yeah, fuck any people who ever wanted self-determination or independence. They should have been anti-nationalist and accepted the imperial boot up their ass

Nationalist does not necessarily mean Patriot.

[Rusozak]

Putin was willing to assassinate this guy in public. I don't think a hunger strike is going to have any impact.

[Bear Stearns]

Yeah, fuck any people who ever wanted self-determination or independence. They should have been anti-nationalist and accepted the imperial boot up their ass

Nationalist does not necessarily mean Patriot.

Being a patriot means being a flag-saluting government bootlicker. Being a nationalist means your political views revolve around what is in the best interest for your people.

[Gomozza]

So, NSG, my question is: given the variety of methods the regime has previously employed to silence or neutralize Navalny, which of the strategies should the West and Russia dissidents adopt this time?

The West should adopt the non-interventionism stance. Let russians deal with their problems.

[Salus Maior]

Nationalist does not necessarily mean Patriot.

Being a patriot means being a flag-saluting government bootlicker. Being a nationalist means your political views revolve around what is in the best interest for your people.

Funny, I'd put it the other way around. With certain reservations.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

This is what we get for not helping Kerensky smdh

The Entente dropped the ball there. Hindsight is a bitch.

We did intervene for the Whites. It didn't work out.

Because we came in too late. By the time we intervened the Bolsheviks had all but won. If we had intervened sooner we probably could've gotten the Whites to organize enough to create a united front.

A triumphant Russian Republic might've change Russia for the better in ways the USSR and RusFed never could. But, well, here we are.

[Salus Maior]

We did intervene for the Whites. It didn't work out.

Because we came in too late. By the time we intervened the Bolsheviks had all but won. If we had intervened sooner we probably could've gotten the Whites to organize enough to create a united front.

A triumphant Russian Republic might've change Russia for the better in ways the USSR and RusFed never could. But, well, here we are.

Yeah, well, unfortunately the Entente was stuck in something called World War 1. So they couldn't have gone in sooner.

[Kilobugya]

Because we came in too late. By the time we intervened the Bolsheviks had all but won. If we had intervened sooner we probably could've gotten the Whites to organize enough to create a united front.

A triumphant Russian Republic might've change Russia for the better in ways the USSR and RusFed never could. But, well, here we are.

I strongly disagree with that - the problem is that the West did massively intervene to help the White, making the civil war and bloodier, and forcing the Bolchevik to become more repressive in order to survive and not suffer the same fate than Paris' Commune. Without the west intervention to help the White, the Blochevik would have won earlier and staid closer to the spirit of the October Revolution, and implemented a much more democratic version of "communism", avoiding all the crimes of Stalinism. The world would have been changed for the better.

[Salus Maior]

Because we came in too late. By the time we intervened the Bolsheviks had all but won. If we had intervened sooner we probably could've gotten the Whites to organize enough to create a united front.

A triumphant Russian Republic might've change Russia for the better in ways the USSR and RusFed never could. But, well, here we are.

I strongly disagree with that - the problem is that the West did massively intervene to help the White, making the civil war and bloodier, and forcing the Bolchevik to become more repressive in order to survive and not suffer the same fate than Paris' Commune. Without the west intervention to help the White, the Blochevik would have won earlier and staid closer to the spirit of the October Revolution, and implemented a much more democratic version of "communism", avoiding all the crimes of Stalinism. The world would have been changed for the better.

The October Revolution was literally an overthrow of democracy. Lenin had about zero interest in democratic government.

Which is why he shut down the Constituent Assembly when the Bolsheviks lost the election to the SRs.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Because we came in too late. By the time we intervened the Bolsheviks had all but won. If we had intervened sooner we probably could've gotten the Whites to organize enough to create a united front.

A triumphant Russian Republic might've change Russia for the better in ways the USSR and RusFed never could. But, well, here we are.

I strongly disagree with that - the problem is that the West did massively intervene to help the White, making the civil war and bloodier, and forcing the Bolchevik to become more repressive in order to survive and not suffer the same fate than Paris' Commune. Without the west intervention to help the White, the Blochevik would have won earlier and staid closer to the spirit of the October Revolution, and implemented a much more democratic version of "communism", avoiding all the crimes of Stalinism. The world would have been changed for the better.

All the Bolshevik's crimes are the result of the evil west? Ok, cool story bro.

[Kilobugya]

The October Revolution was literally an overthrow of democracy. Lenin had about zero interest in democratic government.

Which is why he shut down the Constituent Assembly when the Bolsheviks lost the election to the SRs.

No, the October Revolution was about saving democracy. The SR were elected on a platform of stopping the war and providing food. And then they betrayed that platform and started acting against their promises. So the Soviets took control to ensure the promises will be kept - direct democracy, rather than representative democracy with elected traitors. The whole purpose was "all the power to the Soviets", like under Paris' Commune, not leaving the power in the hands of elected politicians betraying the people, but having the people directly enforce their will.

[Kilobugya]

All the Bolshevik's crimes are the result of the evil west? Ok, cool story bro.

Like so often, yes. Foreign intervention by western imperialists f*cks up countries for decades if not more - that was the case in Vietnam and Cambodia (Pol Pot and his murdering sect would never have taken power if not for the west), it was the case in Afghanistan (the Taliban took power thanks to the west), it was the case in Iran (the Islamic Revolution wouldn't have occurred that way if not for the west supporting the Shah), and examples are countless. The west messing up in Russia is what brought forth Stalin and his crimes, by coercing the Bolchevik to betray their ideal for survival.

[Salus Maior]

The October Revolution was literally an overthrow of democracy. Lenin had about zero interest in democratic government.

Which is why he shut down the Constituent Assembly when the Bolsheviks lost the election to the SRs.

No, the October Revolution was about saving democracy. The SR were elected on a platform of stopping the war and providing food. And then they betrayed that platform and started acting against their promises. So the Soviets took control to ensure the promises will be kept - direct democracy, rather than representative democracy with elected traitors. The whole purpose was "all the power to the Soviets", like under Paris' Commune, not leaving the power in the hands of elected politicians betraying the people, but having the people directly enforce their will.

Yes, and they never gave "all power to the Soviets", that was just a slogan. Lenin never relinquished central power, he was always increasing it.

And that still doesn't explain why Lenin shut down the Constituent Assembly when the Bolsheviks lost the election.

[Kilobugya]

And that still doesn't explain why Lenin shut down the Constituent Assembly when the Bolsheviks lost the election.

I told you - the SR won the elections by promising socialism and immediate peace. Then they started betraying those promises. So the Soviet, a direct democracy body, (not Lenin alone) kicked them to implement what they were elected to do but refusing to do. Politicians making promises to get elected and then breaking them is not democracy. The people taking matter in their end and removing those who betray their promises is. I prefer it the way Paris' Commune did it, with imperative and revokable mandates, but that was not doable in a large, rural, mostly illiterate country of early 20st century. So the only way they had was for the Soviet to take over.

[Ifreann]

Trust NSG to ignore current events in favour of relitigating the Russian Revolution.

[Salus Maior]

And that still doesn't explain why Lenin shut down the Constituent Assembly when the Bolsheviks lost the election.

I told you - the SR won the elections by promising socialism and immediate peace. Then they started betraying those promises. So the Soviet, a direct democracy body, (not Lenin alone) kicked them to implement what they were elected to do but refusing to do. Politicians making promises to get elected and then breaking them is not democracy. The people taking matter in their end and removing those who betray their promises is. I prefer it the way Paris' Commune did it, with imperative and revokable mandates, but that was not doable in a large, rural, mostly illiterate country of early 20st century. So the only way they had was for the Soviet to take over.

The Constituent Assembly was after the October Revolution. The Bolsheviks were already in power.

However, this is off topic.

[Salus Maior]

Trust NSG to ignore current events in favour of relitigating the Russian Revolution.

Most things that have happened in modernity are still relevant, including the Russian Revolution.

But yeah, it's a safe bet to trust that NSG will derail threads.

[Sharania]

What Putin is doing to Navalny is totally unfair and cruel.

...And that's the only decent thing in your comment... Otherwise, you entire response is a proof, that Russia Today’s French broadcasts are surprisingly effective. Macron’s government is way too lenient in allowing adversarial propaganda free reign in his own country. I wonder, why…

But I don't think we should call Navalny "Opposition Leader", that's a very occidental view of the situation of Russia, that doesn't really correspond to a reality over there. Apart from Moscow and a few other urban area, Navalny isn't very popular

Yeah, SURE!/S

100 MILLION views of his last investigative video about Putin’s corruption is “nothing”. Like, there were HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS protesters ALL ACROSS RUSSIA demanding his release despite vicious crackdown, arrests and police brutality, but this is does not count to you. Like the fact that there are no other popular leader among the Russian political opposition to the Regime as popular as Navalny… since the murder of Boris Nemtsov 6 years ago.

and it's more the Communist Party of the Russian Federation that's the main opponent to Putin.

Commies are a party of Russia’s elderly tankies who did NOTHING to oppose Putin’s aggression or crackdown on citizen liberties. In fact – they very much supported. They are 100% fake “opposition”. As for them being more popular, like I said, their voters are elderly, while statistics show that 70% of the pro-Navalny protesters were under the age of 35, majority of them were participating in the protests for the first time in their lives. They are the future.

As for the constant labeling of Navalny as “nationalist” – congrats, RT! Kremlin’s propaganda succeed in a shadowy campaign using both troll fabrics and useful idiots in the West to cast both Navalny and anyone who supports him as outright Nazis! All of this, after a Stalinesque show trial, no less.

Navalny is not optiomal, that’s for sure. People better than him used to represent Russian dissident movement, but they are now either dead or in exile. What, you wish Navalny to be dead as well? After he went on a hunger strike, you (and Kremlin) might just get that wish.

That’s what the real cancel culture is all about – kicking the opposition politician to the brutal regime when he’s already down. There’s also no need to make Navalny some kind of saint now. In fact, no dissident is a saint, and they shouldn’t ever be required to be one. The truth of being a political dissident is that no one starts out on that path wanting to be a glorious and perfect martyr.

The duma, at Putin's behest, is going to pass a new law stating lying about hunger strikes is illegal, and once you claim it, you have to go through with it.

…What?

RIP Mr. Navelny

It’s NavAlny.

It completely boggles my mind why he would think it's a good idea to return to Russia.

Some people just do not have the survival instinct... not even a little bit of it.

I cannot understand this.

Conscience made him go back to Russia. And if he is not a prisoner of conscience, no one is.

[Sharania]

We did intervene for the Whites. It didn't work out.

Because we came in too late. By the time we intervened the Bolsheviks had all but won. If we had intervened sooner we probably could've gotten the Whites to organize enough to create a united front.

A triumphant Russian Republic might've change Russia for the better in ways the USSR and RusFed never could. But, well, here we are.

One - various "White" forces during the Russian Civil War were fond of pogroms.

Two - can you people stop this offtopic and answer the question?

[Bear Stearns]

Because we came in too late. By the time we intervened the Bolsheviks had all but won. If we had intervened sooner we probably could've gotten the Whites to organize enough to create a united front.

A triumphant Russian Republic might've change Russia for the better in ways the USSR and RusFed never could. But, well, here we are.

One - various "White" forces during the Russian Civil War were fond of pogroms.

Gee it's almost like there is a correlation between Bolsheviks and victims of pogroms

[-Ocelot-]

This does not matter

Was expecting to see a comment like this one. Usually comes under the form of "who cares?" or "why is this important?"