Traffic on the single bridge that links Russia to Moscow-annexed Crimea and serves as a key supply route for the Kremlinā€™s forces in the war with Ukraine came to a standstill on Monday after one of its sections was blown up, killing a couple and wounding their daughter.

The RBC Ukraine news agency reported that explosions were heard on the bridge, with Russian military bloggers reporting two strikes.

RBC Ukraine and another Ukrainian news outlet Ukrainska Pravda said the attack was planned jointly by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Ukrainian navy, and involved sea drones.

  • barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    1 year ago

    Most of us are revolutionaries in one breath and democratic socialists in another.

    Oh I donā€™t doubt it. The thing is: The ilk I was referring to donā€™t do democratic socialism even when living in democracies. They may not boycott elections but theyā€™re not really trying to win them, either, the motivation just isnā€™t there because they donā€™t believe it could achieve anything.

    Germany is a huge problem right now there is a massive swing rightwards occurring.

    2/3rd of AfD voters donā€™t agree with the party platform. And not just in the ā€œhavenā€™t read itā€ sense but right-out ā€œyeah I donā€™t like them this is a protest vote fuck all those Wessis in Berlinā€ type of deal. And the east being full of open Nazis isnā€™t exactly new, neither is them infiltrating civil society there the trouble is, and was, since the 90s, that the GDR had no civil society to speak of because politics was something the party did. What we see right now is a combination of protest voters having tried all other parties and are now left with the AfD (and still donā€™t get that if they want a party that shares their ideas, they should bloody fund one) and of the far-right getting bold (which will likely mean theyā€™ll overplay their hand), all in enabling circumstances that have been in place for at least a decade. Oh, Russian disinfo whipping the conspiracy crowd right from ā€œcorona dictatorshipā€ into ā€œclimate dictatorshipā€. We didnā€™t have that for long thatā€™s relatively new.

    The percentage of people with a closed right-extremist world view is actually larger in the west than in the east, yet election results are the exact opposite. Open Nazism is rarer in the west because Antifa, while not necessarily larger, has a way easier time drawing upon wider civil society so the Nazis keep their head down. Thereā€™s xenophobia and feelings of disenfranchisement in the east, the AfD plays into it, and if Wagenknecht ever gets around to actually founding her party sheā€™ll scoop those votes straight up. ā€œUnemployed before refugeesā€ and ā€œtrans rights are human rights but fuck neopronounsā€ is by and large about as far as you need to go to calm those waters, a thing Die Linke never managed to do. Oh, and having selective expropriation of means of production in the programme wonā€™t hurt. Going all-out would not be popular but targeted initiatives, completely different matter.

    • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I donā€™t think it matters if 2 thirds of them donā€™t support the whole platform. What matters is simply that they supported them. It doesnā€™t matter that people here in Britain donā€™t support the whole platform of the tories, they still supported them on Brexit, enabling them to go ahead with the entire rest of their platform.

      The percentage of people with a closed right-extremist world view is actually larger in the west than in the east, yet election results are the exact opposite. Open Nazism is rarer in the west because Antifa, while not necessarily larger, has a way easier time drawing upon wider civil society so the Nazis keep their head down. Thereā€™s xenophobia and feelings of disenfranchisement in the east, the AfD plays into it, and if Wagenknecht ever gets around to actually founding her party sheā€™ll scoop those votes straight up.

      Iā€™m not that familiar with Wagenknecht, is she what happens when the strasserite types of morons understand that nazis are bad but couldnā€™t explain to you why?

      ā€œUnemployed before refugeesā€ and ā€œtrans rights are human rights but fuck neopronounsā€ is by and large about as far as you need to go to calm those waters, a thing Die Linke never managed to do.

      A good thing. Neopronouns are fine and good. People donā€™t understand them but thatā€™s ok, eventually they will, assuming the right donā€™t manage to kill everyone first.

      but targeted initiatives, completely different matter.

      This was the landlords expropriation shit right? Did it ever actually get implemented or did it get snatched out from under the people through other means? I am betting on the latter.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        Ā·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Iā€™m not that familiar with Wagenknecht, is she what happens when the strasserite types of morons understand that nazis are bad but couldnā€™t explain to you why?

        Strasserite fuck no, sheā€™s a card-carrying communist, always has been, joined Die Linke when it was still the SED. Masters inā€¦ philosophy, I guess, on Marxā€™ interpretation of Hegel. PhD in macroeconomics. If the GDR hadnā€™t fallen sheā€™d probably sit in the central committee. Ceased to do Stalin apologia in the 90s, still does Russia apologia and has rather unhelpful Ukraine takes (ā€œletā€™s just all stop shootingā€, ā€œceasefire nowā€). Against a vaccine mandate but that only ever has been debated about in the abstract, anyway, definitely not a denier. Where she really breaks with the rest of Die Linke is the stuff I alluded to (with a bit of populist spin as sheā€™d then also be bound to do it in her new party): The main beef she has with her party is over, as she puts it, Die Linke forgetting to advocate for the broad masses and instead fixating on (however justified) minority issues. See that as you will itā€™s certainly the exact perception people in the east have of the party.

        A good thing. Neopronouns are fine and good. People donā€™t understand them but thatā€™s ok, eventually they will, assuming the right donā€™t manage to kill everyone first.

        Iā€™m drawing the line at having a neutral pronoun anyone can use. I donā€™t mind one bit if some enthusiasts want to go all-out and have as many pronouns in a group as there are people but donā€™t expect me to keep track of all that I can barely remember names (faces and characters and histories, no issue, but names just donā€™t stick). Itā€™s bad enough that Indo-European languages have gender-afflicted noun classes itā€™s a better idea to just get rid of them (or at least class distinctions between different groups of people1) than to explode the number of classes.

        Or, to put it with Zizek: Why LGBTQ+ canā€™t we just all be +.

        This was the landlords expropriation shit right? Did it ever actually get implemented or did it get snatched out from under the people through other means? I am betting on the latter.

        Oh no it went through. Berlinā€™s government is currently dragging its feet (CDU/SPD, both opposed the referendum) but they have to implement it.


        1 Pun not intended but Iā€™ll take it

        • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          The main beef she has with her party is over, as she puts it, Die Linke forgetting to advocate for the broad masses and instead fixating on (however justified) minority issues. See that as you will itā€™s certainly the exact perception people in the east have of the party.

          This is the kind of stuff Iā€™m alluding to. Maybe not strasserite, maybe nazbol-ey. Either way itā€™s not communist. Thereā€™s a significant segment of communists who have fallen rightwards through anti-idpol bollocks failing to understanding marxist intersectionality. Theyā€™ve mistakenly decided it all needs to be rejected for popular support rather than re-educating the population into recognising the intersectionality is a requirement for the broader masses to succeed, we simply donā€™t have the numbers otherwise in the new cosmopolitan societies that were constructed after nation-states ended and got built into the multicultural multi-racial cosmopolitan societies they are today.

          Iā€™m drawing the line at having a neutral pronoun anyone can use. I donā€™t mind one bit if some enthusiasts want to go all-out and have as many pronouns in a group as there are people but donā€™t expect me to keep track of all that I can barely remember names (faces and characters and histories, no issue, but names just donā€™t stick). Itā€™s bad enough that Indo-European languages have gender-afflicted noun classes itā€™s a better idea to just get rid of them (or at least class distinctions between different groups of people1) than to explode the number of classes.

          I donā€™t think anyone wants you to keep tracks, just to acknowledge and respect it. Itā€™s not really something that lgbt people came up with either, it has existed prior to the modern day and Iā€™m willing to bet thereā€™s at least one isolated group out there somewhere using some unusual shit. At the end of the day itā€™s just a way to describe their gender when ā€œmanā€ or ā€œwomanā€ doesnā€™t work for them. Itā€™s pretty harmless and seems to particularly resonate with people that arenā€™t neurotypical so ehhhhhh itā€™s fine. Power to them really. Iā€™m glad theyā€™re happy. I donā€™t have neopronouns but it doesnā€™t affect me so you know.

          Or, to put it with Zizek: Why LGBTQ+ canā€™t we just all be +.

          I couldnā€™t care less what this socdem lib thinks. He was losing my attention with his rape obsession for years but he completely lost my attention when he started writing for the cia outlets like Radio Free. Heā€™s not getting away with ignorance he knows whatā€™s up.

          Oh no it went through. Berlinā€™s government is currently dragging its feet (CDU/SPD, both opposed the referendum) but they have to implement it.

          When? Is there a timeline? If theyā€™re dragging their feet theyā€™re just looking for the circumstances necessary to drop it. When I saw this happen my immediate thought was ā€œtheyā€™ll never ever implement thatā€. If they ever do I will be incredibly surprised.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            Ā·
            1 year ago

            marxist intersectionality.

            ā€¦what? Intersectionality is like a late 80s concept.

            Theyā€™ve mistakenly decided it all needs to be rejected for popular support rather than re-educating the population into recognising the intersectionality is a requirement for the broader masses to succeed,

            How do you re-educate when the masses think youā€™re not interested in their success? How do you get people interested in other peopleā€™s issues if they think youā€™re shafting them?

            Thereā€™s been a massive erosion of the social systems over here roughly starting in 2000 with Schrƶder, New Labour type of stuff, right after Kohl pushed through his neolib privatisation agenda, victims of which were among other things the complete industry of the GDR ā€“ factories were sold for pennies to western competition who then shut stuff down. Itā€™s a double whammy.

            Whereas back in the GDR you were not able to open your mouth without the Stasi taking notes and not able to run your mouth without the Stasi picking you off the street, if you didnā€™t you were guaranteed to be able to get a job, fund a family, have some vacations etc. economically the situation wasnā€™t great but you didnā€™t need to worry about falling through any cracks (as long as you kept your mouth shut). The GDR had no Lumpenproletariat. Itā€™s the exact opposite right now. And people in the east are, rightly, blaming politicians for it. And now Die Linke appears to them to worry more about neopronouns than being demsocs or even socdems.

            Sure you can do both, caring about one doesnā€™t really affect caring about the other ā€“ but you also have to avoid the above perception. Most of all, if you make progress in one area but not the other you might have to tone down those successes lest the perception be that you only fight for one.

            As to the numbers game: For a majority youā€™ll need the masses. No two ways about it. A minority politics focus might win you activists, but not elections.

            and seems to particularly resonate with people that arenā€™t neurotypical so ehhhhhh itā€™s fine.

            Not the schizo spectrum thatā€™s for sure, trust me, Iā€™d know. Autism spectrum, sure, when it comes to subjectivity theyā€™re hyper-normies. Now I donā€™t mind yā€™all having prescriptive identities but you donā€™t have to be muppets about it.

            I couldnā€™t care less what this socdem lib thinks.

            I meanā€¦ you donā€™t have to to consider the point? Ok, hereā€™s what Rosa Luxemburg said: Why LGBTQ+, why not just +?

            When? Is there a timeline? If theyā€™re dragging their feet theyā€™re just looking for the circumstances necessary to drop it. When I saw this happen my immediate thought was ā€œtheyā€™ll never ever implement thatā€. If they ever do I will be incredibly surprised.

            Dragging their feet among other things included ā€œwe need studies, we need a framework law first, and we have to make sure that itā€™s even compatible with Berlinā€™s constitutionā€ (the Berlin constitution, unlike the federal one, wasnā€™t explicitly written to be compatible with state capitalism, but in any case the federal one takes precedence), so they tasked an expert commission with figuring all that out. Said commission just recently reached its final verdict: No framework law needed, yep of course itā€™s constitutional, itā€™s probably even going to be cheap.

            The government is constitutionally required to implement it, the referendum was legally binding. The rest is a matter of rule of law. If they refuseā€¦ well courts can hold them in contempt but thatā€™s not going to do much. But it would cost them the next elections, or probably rather cause early elections because the SPD wouldnā€™t want to dig their heels in over this one. Or there can be another referendum, this time of the ā€œthis exact law shall now be in forceā€ kind, not the ā€œthe senate shall legislate on this matterā€ one.

            • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              Ā·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              ā€¦what? Intersectionality is like a late 80s concept.

              A third wave concept yes. The only issue with the liberal conception of it is that it does not include class as one of its methods of analysis. The intersection between a black trans woman creates different conditions to that of a white trans woman, but without class it creates an incomplete analysis. Class explains the difference in experience that creates for example the right wing trans bourgeoisie, who ultimately are insulated from the conditions that a poor working class trans person experiences and thus they politically lean towards protecting their class status even if it means supporting people who are hurting trans people. Marxist intersectionality simply adds in class to complete the picture and analyse groups correctly.

              As to the numbers game: For a majority youā€™ll need the masses. No two ways about it. A minority politics focus might win you activists, but not elections.

              Itā€™s a balancing act. Protecting the marginalised while also connecting the dots between class issues and their issues. The issue is that people go too far one way or the other, the groups that want to never defend the marginalised groups for fear of the outcome simply become reactionaries themselves. Although a controversial figure Stalinā€™s quote on antisemitism leading the working class into the jungle is just as relevant to all the various minority groups today.

              I meanā€¦ you donā€™t have to to consider the point? Ok, hereā€™s what Rosa Luxemburg said: Why LGBTQ+, why not just +?

              Because itā€™s not about him. Itā€™s about the LGBTQ+ people. This attitude reeks of the same ā€œwhy canā€™t you just like be a little less this and a little more thatā€, which is something the various phobes and bigots (whether they realise it or not) have consistently levelled at lgbt people over the decades. They decide what they are, and how they like to present their community and identity. Zizek doing this shit just demonstrates he fundamentally doesnā€™t give a fuck about us, and that he would only like to make these groups politically more convenient for himself. On top of that there is the other issue, that lgbt people have for decades now had to exist in a ā€œfuck you, we exist in public and thatā€™s your problem not oursā€ attitude to public life and existence, attempts to make them adjust how they exist in public life are always going to be viewed as attacks when that is the cultural background of the community defending itself and its right to exist. Thatā€™s what ā€œprideā€ is, a big fuck you we exist weā€™re proud of that and visible. Having people come in from outside and try to tell them to do it differently isā€¦ Not good. Itā€™s out of touch. It shows heā€™s never really engaged properly in order to understand this group, how it got to where it is, why it defends itself so aggressively, etc etc.

              Dragging their feet among other things included ā€œwe need studies, we need a framework law first, and we have to make sure that itā€™s even compatible with Berlinā€™s constitutionā€ (the Berlin constitution, unlike the federal one, wasnā€™t explicitly written to be compatible with state capitalism, but in any case the federal one takes precedence), so they tasked an expert commission with figuring all that out. Said commission just recently reached its final verdict: No framework law needed, yep of course itā€™s constitutional, itā€™s probably even going to be cheap.

              The government is constitutionally required to implement it, the referendum was legally binding. The rest is a matter of rule of law. If they refuseā€¦ well courts can hold them in contempt but thatā€™s not going to do much. But it would cost them the next elections, or probably rather cause early elections because the SPD wouldnā€™t want to dig their heels in over this one. Or there can be another referendum, this time of the ā€œthis exact law shall now be in forceā€ kind, not the ā€œthe senate shall legislate on this matterā€ one.

              I think theyā€™ll take the election hit over implementing it. But weā€™ll see.

              What happens after that? Who has the teeth to force its implementation? Anyone at all? Or can the courts do nothing more than ā€œwe find you in contemptā€ ? What actual repercussions does that have other than electoral? The bougies can play the electoral game and come out on top forever if there is no real way to force any of these parties into implementing it when they donā€™t want to do it. They could fuck around for years, and then throw it out in some crisis saying ā€œitā€™s no longer viable because [excuse here]ā€. ā€œItā€™s been too longā€, ā€œwe have war now the conditions are differentā€, ā€œthereā€™s a famine from climate change occurring nowā€, ā€œwe have a water crisisā€, ā€œthe war with chinaā€. I can think of so many things that are just around the corner that could be used as excuses. As long as the ā€œā€œpunishmentā€ā€ is only in the ballot box they could feasibly fuck around forever, if no alternative mechanisms of forcing it through exist.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                Ā·
                1 year ago

                Thatā€™s what ā€œprideā€ is, a big fuck you we exist weā€™re proud of that and visible.

                See the issue is you all look like humans to me. You can slice humanity up in any number of ways and can say ā€œfuck you we existā€ for a gazillion of characteristics or combinations thereof, one is ultimately as meaningless as the other. Individual people having identities, sure, thatā€™s perfectly warranted theyā€™re autonomous agents with their own properties but group identities? All youā€™re doing there is prescribing behaviours to each other, denying both individualism and universalism.

                Now you might not perceive it like that because all your perception is soaked to one half in ā€œIt is me who is perceiving thisā€, i.e. the presence of a subject, and that subject gets all warm and fuzzy if thereā€™s others sharing a sufficiently close subjectivity giving you reason to immediately and unthinkingly compromise your own individuality but objectively, yep, prescribing behaviours to each other is what youā€™re doing. It just so happens that you like it that way.

                (It then shouldnā€™t come as a surprise that thereā€™s no such thing as a schizophrenia-spectrum idpol movement. Itā€™d be like cats trying to herd cats. We rather prefer to confuse the fuck out of each other when we meet by chance)

                Also, not everyone wants to be visible, which is why Iā€™m e.g. critical of establishing a cultural norm of having people state their pronouns when giving talks and whatnot. You have fluid people that are then forced to lock themselves into an identity which might change from making their slides to giving their talk to mingling after, you have people whoā€™d rather be publicly closeted about being trans and force them to choose between outing themselves and publicly lying about themselves.

                The whole thing would be easier if language wouldnā€™t force us to choose a gender. Thereā€™s plenty of language in which thatā€™s worse than in English, e.g. in Russian you canā€™t talk about yourself in the past without choosing between male and female, but thereā€™s also plenty of language (but AFAIK not a single Indo-European one) in which itā€™s possible to talk for ages about someone without once implying their gender, and thatā€™s the natural, idiomatic way to do things. As such: Why not get rid of he and she, everyoneā€™s a they? (which is what I actually meant the ā€œeveryoneā€™s a +ā€ thing is merely structurally similar, but ultimately a different topic).

                As to visibility: Thatā€™s what the marches are for. What matters there is that a kid from a small village, completely alone in being member of a sexual minority and thus having issues finding connection and advise, can see that theyā€™re not alone. It allows both the kid and the rest of the village to say ā€œyep that kid might be a rare breed, but nonetheless itā€™s nothing out of the ordinaryā€.

                Who has the teeth to force its implementation?

                If the government ignores courts then weā€™re in a full-on constitutional crisis. Which wouldnā€™t be unprecedented, mind you. Technically, then, Article 20 (4) applies:

                All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available.

                and thatā€™s what the RAF argued, and also what the Last Generation tends to argue, having an even stronger case than the RAF: In particular, thereā€™s already federal court judgements declaring that the government is ignoring its own climate laws, laws parliament was required to pass on order of the constitutional court. But using that as defence in criminal court has never, ever, worked. 20 years after, though, when perceptions have shifted it gives you the right to say ā€œtold you soā€ so thereā€™s that and it might very well play into parole hearings.

                The courts, even if they de jure have the power (e.g. judgements of the constitutional court are immediately applicable law) tend to shy away from using it when theyā€™re of the opinion that parliament is the one who should do it ā€“ thatā€™s a general thing, not specific to this situation. They issue ā€œthis half-sentence of the law shall not be applied until parliament comes up with a sane version of the lawā€ type of orders. But thatā€™s because theyā€™re balancing their own powers, cognisant that they while judging in the name of the people, theyā€™re, well, unelected technocrats. But then the Berlin expropriation thing isnā€™t an ordinary situation, the whole thing does already have democratic justification because it was a referendum, courts wouldnā€™t be interfering in the process of formation of the political will of the people in this instance: They donā€™t have to defer to parliament to not hurt democracy. As such it would kinda be a first but constitutional courts might just enact a full-on law directly and I have little doubt that the administration would apply it.

                I mean itā€™s not that Mao wasnā€™t ultimately right about politics and cannons, however, not even the FDP would start a civil war over a couple of apartments.