[ASA_PEWS] Fwd: (Fwd) Boris Kagarlitsky, happy birthday! (albeit imprisoned four more years)

[Christopher Chase-Dunn]

sociologist boris kagarlitsky imprisoned in Russia

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Patrick Bond <pbond at mail.ngo.za>
Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 12:19 AM
Subject: (Fwd) Boris Kagarlitsky, happy birthday! (albeit imprisoned four
more years)
To: progeconnetwork at googlegroups.com <progeconnetwork at googlegroups.com>,
DEBATE <debate-list at fahamu.org>, brics-wkgp <brics-wkgp at googlegroups.com>, <
peoplesforum_brics at googlegroups.com>, Post WSMDiscuss <
wsm-discuss at lists.openspaceforum.net>, <
boris-solidarity-intnl at lists.riseup.net>


If you can, please send a b'day note to Boris here
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeVx4haZNqQO2Jx8gJwNA9xqWTpttumLbSBQfgVlXmHIdr2yw/viewform>.


And please sign his petition
<https://www.change.org/p/free-boris-kagarlitsky-and-all-russian-anti-war-political-prisoners/u/32779946>
if you haven't. Free Boris Kagarlitsky and all Russian anti-war political
prisoners!
<https://www.change.org/p/free-boris-kagarlitsky-and-all-russian-anti-war-political-prisoners>

And save *October 7* as a day we look carefully - in an online conference -
at Boris' work and life.

More details coming: https://freeboris.info/

***

https://ukraine-solidarity.eu/manifestomembers/get-involved/news-and-analysis/news-and-analyses/russian-folk-punks-release-track-in-solidarity-with-political-prisoner-boris-kagarlitsky
Russian folk-punks release track in solidarity with political prisoner
Boris Kagarlitsky
www
https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/russian-folk-punks-release-track-solidarity-political-prisoner-boris-kagarlitsky?s=09
Author

*Federico Fuentes
<https://www.greenleft.org.au/glw-authors/federico-fuentes>*
Date
August 30, 2023

Russian folk-punk outfit Arkadiy Kots Band
<https://www.facebook.com/ArkadiyKots?__cft__%5b0%5d=AZUOToapdLIlc5DPoFPT4wrsSmU5kzh6I1btD69QEEU9LFDV1UGRzlzlWHQehoON-1PZMwLoF65s6XbHxF0X3zIo_W3r6LkkMIRend9NTDeYIXYt9ulcqQGQUKdgdH_VmsI1-nFFu-6jyOpakvU0d0KJAbDHPjwIsyZ3QMEdSxKdTj51w3pHgzuIK-K0_WhrJ7eyx0RgZ4wWVuzEqZsvpNqY&__tn__=-%5dK-y-R>
have
released a new track to mark the 66th birthday of political prisoner Boris
Kagarlitsky. The title and lyrics for the song are taken from one of
Kagarlitsky’s last articles before his arrest, “A plea to my Western
progressive friends
<https://links.org.au/boris-kagarlitsky-russia-plea-my-western-progressive-friends-stop-helping-putin-your-conciliatory>
”.

The well-known Marxist sociologist, who publicly opposed Russia’s current
war on Ukraine, spent his birthday on August 29 in a pre-trial detention
centre, where he has been since being detained on July 25. Kagarlitsky is
facing the possibility of up to seven years’ jail if found guilty of the
trumped-up charge of “justifying terrorism”.

His arrest has been viewed by many as an escalation of Russian President
Vladimir Putin’s domestic war on leftist anti-war dissent.

Arkadiy Kots Band’s decision to use Kagarlitsky’s article as a means to
promote solidarity with his case are self-evident. In his open letter to
Western progressives, Kagarlitsky writes: “We only need one thing — stop
helping Putin with your conciliatory and ambiguous statements.

“The more often such statements are made, the greater will be the
confidence of officials, deputies and policemen that the current order can
continue to exist with the silent support or hypocritical grumbling of the
West.

“Every conciliatory statement made by liberal intellectuals in America
results in more arrests, fines, and searches of democratic activists and
just plain people here in Russia.”

Speaking to *Green Left *about the song, band member Kirill Medvedev
<https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/russian-socialist-movement-war-and-resistance-under-putin>,
who is also an activist with the Russian Socialist Movement, said: “We are
participating in the campaign in support of Kagarlitsky not only because he
is a person who has fundamentally influenced us as a rare left-wing
intellectual in post-Soviet Russia ... who was sent to prison for his
socialist beliefs in the late Soviet Union era, under [Boris] Yeltsin and
under Putin.

“The campaign in his support is an opportunity to unite both Russian and
many international leftists on a renewed platform: democratic,
anti-capitalist, anti-war. And it is an opportunity to show those
progressives who have a positive or neutral view of Putin's regime that it
is time to reconsider their views.

On the importance of solidarity with Kagarlitsky, Medvedev added: “If we do
not support Boris today, tomorrow we will face a complete purge of the
remnants of the independent left and trade union movement under the pretext
of ‘defending our state traditions against the West’.”

In response to Kagarlitsky’s arrest, the Russian-based Kagarlitsky
Solidarity Committee launched an international petition
<https://freeboris.info/> demanding his release. The committee is also
calling for an international day of action in solidarity with Kagarlitsky,
to be held outside Russian consulates and embassies on September 16.

[The song can be downloaded at Bandcamp
<https://arkadiy.bandcamp.com/track/boris-kagarlitsky-a-plea-to-my-western-progressive-friends>
or
viewed on Youtube <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bpJ_wMriIc>.]
On 8/3/2024 11:34 AM, Patrick Bond wrote:

(As I understand it from his lawyer Sergei Erekhov and close allies, Boris
was not up for release this week, not only because he's a leftist political
prisoner whom the Kremlin won't want to have back organising against the
war, especially if based in Moscow. He's also refusing to leave his
homeland; he won't go into exile.

It's all the more important to check out recent efforts on his behalf, as
well as his own new analyses of the global left, published in *Links,
*reproduced
below the box*. *And in early October, we will have an online conference in
his honour, and a booklaunch of his new book, *The long retreat... *so let
me know if you want to be part of it, thanks.)

SIGN PLEASE:
https://www.change.org/p/free-boris-kagarlitsky-and-all-russian-anti-war-political-prisoners/u/32779946
Free Boris Kagarlitsky and all Russian anti-war political prisoners!
<https://www.change.org/p/free-boris-kagarlitsky-and-all-russian-anti-war-political-prisoners>
Kagarlitsky supporters in Russia to campaign to amend 'justification of
terrorism' law
Boris Kagarlitsky International Solidarity Campaign

27 Jul 2024

*A campaign (the "Kagarlitsky Amendments") is under way in Russia to amend
Kremlin legislation under which Boris Kagarlitsky has been jailed for five
years.*

 On July 26, as part of the promotion and formalisation of the legislative
initiative to amend Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation--under which Boris Kagarlitsky was found guilty of "justifying
terrorism"--his lawyer Sergei Erekhov took up the issue with the Chairman
of the New People party, A.G. Nechaev.

*(See below for text of Article 205.2)*

Erekhov explained the move on his Telegram channel: "Despite the fact that
the 'Kagarlitsky Amendments' are a non-political initiative, only deputies
of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation or
other persons named in Article 104 of the Constitution of the Russian
Federation can submit it for consideration by parliament.

"I decided to turn to the New People party, since those who pin their hopes
on reforming the legislation of the Russian Federation voted for it in the
past federal and regional elections."

In his letter to New Party leader Nechaev, Erekhov comments that "in the
course of my work on the case [of Boris Kagarlitsky], I came to the
conclusion that the wording of Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation is somewhat ambiguous and the sanctions are excessively
'severe'. I believe that Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation needs to be 'humanised' in the light of a number of convictions,
taking into account a number of sentences against public figures,
journalists, representatives of the creative intelligentsia, as well as
citizens."

Erekhov states that he has formulated a number of specific proposals for
amendments to Article 205.2 and asks New People party leader Nechaev, if
convinced by the strength of Erekhov's argumentation after meeting him
privately,  "to create an expert group under my leadership to amend Article
205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation".

Erekhov concludes his note with a commitment to keep people informed of the
course of this initiative, and asks if anyone has any suggestions or
comments to make write to him at kagarlitsky205.2 at mail.ru.

Sergei Erekhov's social network details (in Russian):
VKontakte page: V&rz://UK.sot/egdeige
Telegram channel: Prz:/I.te/egdeige

*Article 205.2. Public Calls for Committing of Terrorist Activity or Public
Justification of Terrorism*

*1. Public calls for the commission of terrorist activity or public
justification of terrorism shall be punishable with a fine of up to five
hundred thousand roubles or to the amount of **a wage or other income of
the convicted person for the period up to three years, or with compulsory
labour for a term of up to four years, or with deprivation of liberty for a
term of two to five years.*

*2. The same acts committed through the use of the mass media shall be
punishable with a fine of three hundred thousand roubles to one million
roubles **or to the amount of the convicted person's wage or other income
for the period of three to five years, or with compulsory labour for a term
of up to five years, with deprivation of the right to hold specific offices
or engage in specified activities for a term of up to five years or, in the
absence of such measures, with deprivation of liberty for a term up to
seven years with prohibition from certain offices/positions or from
engaging in specified activities for a term of up to five years.*

*Note. In the present article "the public justification of terrorism" means
a public statement recognising the ideology or practices of terrorism as
correct, and requiring adherence and following.*
Sign this petition
<https://www.change.org/p/free-boris-kagarlitsky-and-all-russian-anti-war-political-prisoners?show_sign=true&source_location=petition_update_page>

*Prisoner swaps between Moscow and Western capitals*

https://www.democracynow.org/2024/8/2/russia_prisoners

Katrina van den Heuvel, *The Nation, *2 August 2024*:*

"there are still political prisoners in Russia. And Boris Kagarlitsky, who
has been on your program, Amy, is someone who has been arrested and
convicted for six-and-a-half years for simple opposition to the war in
Ukraine. Lula and other international leaders have signed a letter of
protest in solidarity. And if you go to TheNation.com
<https://www.thenation.com/?s=Boris+Kagarlitsky> and put in “Boris
Kagarlitsky,” you can see what you can do to assist in release not just of
Boris, but there are others who are part of his institute for labor and
social movements."

***

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/02/evan-gershkovich-is-free-and-keen-to-raise-plight-of-russian-political-prisoners

Evan Gershkovich, 1 August 2024:

“There’s one thing I would like to say. It was great to get on that bus
today and see not just Americans and Germans but Russian political
prisoners. I spent a month in prison in Yekaterinburg where everyone I sat
with was a political prisoner. Nobody knows them publicly, they have
various political beliefs, they are not all connected with Navalny
supporters, who everyone knows about. I would potentially like to see if we
could do something about them as well. I’d like to talk to people about
that in the next weeks and months.”

***

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/kremlin-says-russian-us-intelligence-cooperation-made-prisoner-exchange-possible/3293453#
Kremlin says Russian, US intelligence cooperation made prisoner exchange
possible Peskov says such exchange demands lots of efforts, coordination
Elena Teslova  | 02.08.2024 - Update : 03.08.2024

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Thursday's prisoner exchange between
Russia and US, coordinated by Türkiye, was a result of collaboration of
Federal Security Service (FSB) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)...
Asked about the warm reception for Vadim Krasikov, a former member of the
special Alpha unit of the FSB, Peskov said Krasikov was member of the
presidential security staff. He declined to comment on future potential
exchanges, including negotiations concerning journalist Ivan Safronov and
sociologist Boris Kagarlitsky, both serving sentences for working for
foreign intelligence.

https://links.org.au/left-should-not-be-making-concessions-dictating-its-terms-boris-kagarlitsky-far-right-threat
‘The left should not be making concessions, but dictating its terms’: Boris
Kagarlitsky on the far right threat, British Labour, and the French left’s
chances of success
By Boris Kagarlitsky <https://links.org.au/author/boris-kagarlitsky> & Sasha
<https://links.org.au/author/sasha>
Published 31 July, 2024

[*Editor's note*: In the interview below, Russian Marxist Boris Kagarlitsky
responds to questions sent by Sasha from Rabkor to his cell in a Russian
prison, where he currently finds himself serving a five-year jail term for
his anti-war views. You can support the campaign to free Kagarlitsky by
signing a petition here
<https://www.change.org/p/free-boris-kagarlitsky-and-all-russian-anti-war-political-prisoners>
.]

*First published in Russian at **Rabkor*
<https://rabkor.ru/columns/editorial-columns/2024/07/26/kagarlitsky-interview-the-west-starmer-and-unconquered-france/>*.
Translation by Renfrey Clarke for **LINKS International Journal of
Socialist Renewal* <https://links.org.au/>*.*

*The left and liberal mass media in Europe and the US have increasingly
been writing and talking about the new threat posed by the far right. This
threat is also evident in the successes registered by far right parties in
Europe, where these currents have good prospects of challenging for power
or even taking government. How real, and how pressing, is the danger now of
a fascisation of society and politics? Will today’s far-rightists actually
be able to do away completely with the remnants of democratic structures
and build a new totalitarian system, as occurred during the past century?*

For a number of years I have been saying that we should not panic at the
growth of right-wing populism in Europe, or for that matter in the US. In
essence, the bugbear of the “right-wing threat” has been used by the
liberal centre in an effort to force members of the left to abandon their
own agenda, even if this is reformist, and to throw their support behind
liberals and the moderate right in the name of “saving democracy”. The left
has followed to the letter the instructions coming from the liberals, and
what have we finished up with? The influence of the left has been reduced
to a historic minimum, and its forces have been turned into a mobile
reserve for the “progressive” bourgeoisie, which on economic questions is
even more reactionary than a lot of hardened conservatives.

At the same time, the influence of the far right has kept growing in
precisely the degree to which the left has retreated from its previous
class politics. An outsized proportion of workers and the poor now vote for
the far right, because they can see that the left has sold them out.
Meanwhile, the successes of the national-populists are creating a situation
in which a section of the bourgeoisie is starting to see these people as a
force with a future, and is putting money into them. It is true that this
is going to cause the rightists to abandon their social populism, which in
theory could allow the left to win back this electorate. But this is only a
possibility, and in the meantime, the situation is getting worse.

*In France the far right Rassemblement National (National Rally, RN) has
been riding high in the polls. Just before the parliamentary elections
called by [French President Emmanuel] Macron, it seemed as though the far
right would win an absolute or relative majority, but in the event, they
finished up in third place. The front-runners turned out to be the **Nouveau
Front populaire*
<https://links.org.au/far-right-and-radical-left-after-european-and-french-elections>*
(New Popular Front, NFP). What do you think — will the New Popular Front be
able to achieve at least the successes of the old Popular Front, or is the
alliance already doomed to defeat?*

In my book *Between Class and Discourse*
<https://www.routledge.com/Between-Class-and-Discourse-Left-Intellectuals-in-Defence-of-Capitalism/Kagarlitsky/p/book/9780367562700>,
I predicted some aspects of what is happened in France — notably, that
Macron and his policies would allow the far right to take on the appearance
of an anti-systemic alternative in the eyes of an important sector of the
masses, and that this would make the far-rightists real contenders for
power, or at least, would see them emerge as the largest single current. I
also wrote that the left populism of Mélenchon offered an alternative, but
that other left organisations would do everything they could to stop this
alternative — to both Macronism and the far right — from coming into being.

Various lessons from past failures are still influencing Mélenchon in his
choice of electoral alliances, but in political terms, unfortunately, the
earlier line of joining with the centre persists. This is a catastrophic
approach, but one that is very hard to overcome so long as the radical left
is not confronting the moderates with a powerful grassroots mobilisation.
The outcome of the electoral struggle will also depend on whether this
mobilisation is successful. For the moment, Mélenchon is being forced to
make concessions, since the extent of the upsurge is not sufficient. It
exists, but it is inadequate. In essence, Mélenchon has tried to force his
way into the Hôtel Matignon on the shoulders of a demoralised centrist
electorate. Nevertheless, the debacle of the centre has not been complete —
the corpse is still showing certain signs of life. Even after going down to
defeat, the centrist agenda is being imposed on the left. This is despite
the left scoring a victory, though not a complete one.

*Do you think the radical left, led by La France Insoumise (France Unbowed,
LFI), has any chance of turning the situation to its advantage?*

The “unbowed” are not just capable of turning things to their advantage —
it is essential for them to do it. But will this work? From my distant
position, I cannot say with certainty.

*In Britain, elections have brought the Labour Party to power. Will the
moderate rule of Keir Starmer lead to mass disillusionment of the
population and a possible growth of [Nigel] Farage’s far-right Reform UK
party, which scored more than four million votes at those elections?*

Predicting the imminent downfall of Keir Starmer is a commonplace for
left-wing analysts, and not only for those on the left. This is because
Starmer has neither a precise agenda nor a clear program, and in the words
of the comrades from the TG-Canal program “The Wheatfields of Theresa May”,
he is “as dull as non-alcoholic beer”. Quite likely, these forecasts will
be borne out. But at least for the sake of intellectual balance, let us try
to analyse another variant.

The fact that Starmer has no distinct political identity, that he lacks his
own ideas and program, could turn out to be not just a weakness, but also a
sort of advantage — it may be that, like a weathercock, he will turn in any
direction. Since coming to power he has “purged” the left, since they were
preventing him from consolidating his control over the party and achieving
positive coverage for his activity in the bourgeois press. If for some
reason he finds he needs to turn to the left, he will do that with the same
unconcern and lack of principle as he showed earlier in turning the party
to the right. I remember that while [Jeremy] Corbyn was leader, Starmer was
completely loyal to him, not for ideological reasons but simply because it
suited him better. So it is not about Starmer’s personality or his program,
which does not exist, but about the general circumstances. Might something,
like the pressures of a social and economic crisis, force the opportunists
who head the party to change course to the left?

There is also a second question: just who are these 410 Labour MPs who have
just been elected? In most cases they are unknown quantities. But most
important is the fact that they themselves do not know who they are. How
will they interact with their constituents, and how will they build their
careers? The success of [former Labour leader] Tony Blair did not prevent
the later return by the left to the leadership of the Labour Party, or stop
the rise of Corbyn.

In theory, a shift to the left is possible even under Starmer, and
especially after he goes. Is it going to be necessary to wait until the
Labourites fail, to win changes in the party? What if some kind of
turnabout starts on the municipal and regional level? We should not forget
the revival of Labour in Scotland (my grandmother Anna Kolinz would have
been very pleased by this). In Britain today there are interesting openings
in regional politics. And can we really ignore the success of Sinn Féin in
Northern Ireland? From being Catholic nationalists, they have transformed
themselves into left populists, and their prospects depend on whether they
can win the trust of worker-Protestants. In short, there are opportunities
for left politics in Britain even now, and it is not obligatory to wait for
three to five years.

And finally, let us return to Starmer. He is an apparatchik and a
managerial type — more than likely, a capable one. The question is whether
he will be able to cope with the tasks of government, which are completely
different from weaving intrigues in the party. But perhaps he will cope, so
on the whole, let us give this boring individual the benefit of the doubt.
I am not at all sure that the possibilities I have sketched out will come
to pass, especially since there are many countervailing factors. I simply
call on everyone to be more attentive to detail, and when chances appear,
not to let them slip.

*Some time ago, the **New York Times** published an article by [former
Democratic US presidential candidate] Bernie Sanders entitled “**Joe Biden
for President*
<https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/13/opinion/joe-biden-president.html>*”, in
which Sanders supported Biden and urged Democrats not to call for him to be
replaced during the election campaigning. As a general thing, should
members of the left think in terms of “lesser evils” in the run-up to
elections? In the face of a far-right threat, is it correct to insist on
the selection of a single bourgeois candidate?*

Sanders has tried again and again to save the Democratic Party by making
concessions, but the results have been unimpressive. In 2016 he capitulated
before the party apparatus and Hillary Clinton in order to prevent a
[Donald] Trump victory — with the result that Trump won. Bernie has also
refrained from criticising [Joe] Biden, which has not helped Biden any.
Bernie has set out to prove to the Democratic Party establishment that he
is a loyal supporter, and that there is no need to be afraid of him.
Nevertheless, they have not let him anywhere near power. We will see how
that works now.

It is possible they will treat him more graciously, but they will not be
less hostile to his agenda. Whatever the case, the same logic is at work
here as in France and to some degree in Germany — the left is moving to the
centre, while the centre is losing influence and the support of society.
The need is for something quite different, for radical mobilisation. The
left should not be making concessions, but dictating its terms. When you
are at war, you act like you are at war. If democracy really is in danger,
then there is all the more need to be tough and strong.

***


https://links.org.au/black-swan-will-inevitably-alight-boris-kagarlitsky-why-left-movement-will-have-be-constructed
‘A “black swan” will inevitably alight’: Boris Kagarlitsky on why the left
movement will have to be constructed afresh
By Boris Kagarlitsky <https://links.org.au/author/boris-kagarlitsky> &
Historical
Investigation <https://links.org.au/author/historical-investigation>
Published 12 July, 2024

*First published in Russian at **Historical Investigation*
<https://www.istorex.org/post/06-07-2024-boris-kagarlitsky>*. Translation
by Renfrey Clarke for **LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal*
<https://links.org.au/>*. *

>From a Russian prison, the prominent scholar, Marxist theoretician and
political detainee Boris Kagarlitsky replies to questions from *Historical
Investigation*, putting forward his view on the reasons for the left's
crisis. He suggests that members of the left have been unprepared for a
systemic crisis, and that as a result, the left movement will have to be
founded anew. He also discusses the collapse of the left-wing Utopia,
neoliberalism, the Soviet heritage, the idea of a “universal basic income”,
the fate of European social democracy and Latin American “Socialism of the
21st Century”, the danger to democracy posed by the extreme right, and the
possibility of nuclear war. In his view, the left has a sound theoretical
basis, but needs practical successes to demonstrate the feasibility of the
socialist project.

Boris Yulyevich Kagarlitsky is a Marxist sociologist, Soviet-era dissident,
social activist, and political prisoner convicted under Article 205.2 of
the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Public appeals for the
carrying out of terrorist actions, public justification of terrorism or
propaganda in support of terrorism”). He is currently imprisoned at
Corrective Colony 4, Torzhok, Tver Province, Russia.
‘The left movement will have to be constructed afresh’

*Axel Honneth notes a paradoxical phenomenon — the crisis of the left has
appeared against a background of disillusionment with capitalism. Do you
agree that the left is in crisis? What are the reasons for this crisis?*

Honneth is unquestionably correct in speaking of a crisis of the left,
something that I too discussed in my books *Between Class and Discourse*
<https://www.routledge.com/Between-Class-and-Discourse-Left-Intellectuals-in-Defence-of-Capitalism/Kagarlitsky/p/book/9780367562700>
and *The Long Retreat*
<https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745350288/the-long-retreat/>. This crisis
is visible to the naked eye. But there is also the seeming paradox that the
crisis of the left is occurring in the context of a crisis of capitalism,
and of declining confidence in it in most societies. In reality, there is
no particular paradox here. We might recall the collapse of the Second
International (not just [Vladimir] Lenin’s article
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/csi/> by this name, but
also the collapse itself). Just as generals always prepare to fight the
previous war, politicians and especially left-wing politicians prepare
themselves to confront the previous crisis. Their tactics and strategy
*always**
<https://links.org.au/black-swan-will-inevitably-alight-boris-kagarlitsky-why-left-movement-will-have-be-constructed#footnote*_Rtq8I7T-a6pwWH-Gshbc3RfbFcz7FZrj70958wObMI_srHc8TPys5xn>
lag
behind the changes in society. Revolutionary overturns are not just linked
to the radicalism of various projected measures, but always reflect a
radical shift in tactics and strategy, which “catch up” with reality.
Meanwhile, it’s important to note that almost all significant revolutions
have been criticised as “incorrect” by whichever left forces were orthodox
at that particular time. Here it is worth remembering the title of the
once-celebrated book by Régis Debray, *Revolution in the Revolution*.

It would, of course, be wrong to argue that the tactics and program of the
left have not changed over the past twenty years. But unfortunately, these
changes have not been aimed at developing a program designed to counter the
problems and contradictions of present-day capitalism. Instead, the aim has
been to adapt to capitalism, to find a place for the left within
capitalism, so that supporters of the left can settle down comfortably
within the system. Basically, this aim has been achieved. But now we have
been hit by a systemic crisis, and the left has found itself not just
unprepared, but superfluous, an element in a disappearing landscape. As a
result, the left movement will have to be constructed afresh, and not for
the first time. The decisive thing, however, is the need for practical
successes, not on the level of electoral victories but on that of genuinely
successful and meaningful social changes, which can be pointed to as
examples. The people who can achieve this will shape the political model of
the movement for the years ahead.

*Where does the world stand at present? Is it correct to say that we are in
the epoch of neoliberalism? And what is neoliberalism? How is it connected
to the transition from an industrial to an information society?*

Unfortunately, the term “neoliberalism” is all too often used without
paying heed to its content. We could, of course, refer to David Harvey’s
excellent book *A Brief History of Neoliberalism*. But in short, what is
involved is the dismantling of the institutions of the welfare state that
were established in the twentieth century, and the turning into commodities
of goods and services that used to be produced and distributed on a
different basis. In this way, capital is creating new markets for itself
and is counteracting the tendency for profit rates to decline, while at the
same time winning back social positions it had earlier surrendered. The
trouble is that the resources included in the field of private market
distribution are being exhausted and this is giving rise to a systemic
crisis. The system’s supporters emphasise the freedom of the market, but
this is correct only up to a point. Removing the limits on market practices
has the effect of strengthening the large corporations that are best able
to take advantage of this situation. In sum, we are witnessing
monopolisation and the subjugation of small and medium business to the
corporations. Of course, we all know of contrary examples, of successful
individuals such as Pavel Durov and Elon Musk. But these people ceased long
ago to belong to the category of small entrepreneurs; the point about them
is that they founded corporations.

Is all this tied up with the appearance of new technologies? Yes, but only
in part. Any serious changes in capitalism, and in the economy in general,
always occur against a backdrop of technological shifts. The question is
whether these technologies can be used differently, in a non-capitalist
manner, and this is something fraught with struggle. The conflicts around
open program codes in the computer industry, around intellectual property
and so forth, show that there is indeed an alternative, and it is
interesting that there is now a noticeable influx of IT specialists into
the left movement. Earlier, this milieu was inclined mainly to liberalism,
but now the trend has changed. The milieu is not only moving to the left,
but is becoming radicalised.
‘There’s nothing more pointless than trying to imagine a shining future’

*The “actually existing socialism” of the 20th century brought the left
movement into disrepute. After the “gulag archipelago” many people became
convinced that implementing any project aimed at creating a society based
on the principles of social justice would inevitably lead to a new gulag.
How should members of the left relate to the tragic experience of the USSR?
How can we convince people that to talk about socialism is to talk about
the future, and not about the history of the Soviet Union? After all, there
are many people today who do not distinguish between the neoliberal market
economy and democracy, just as native American peoples once imagined the
horse and the conquistador to be one and the same animal. As a result,
people regard socialism as a threat to democracy. Is a socialism based on
democratic principles possible?*

To compare public opinion with the view of the Aztec who failed to
differentiate between the horse and its rider strikes me as rather
apposite. The answer to the problem, however, does not lie in theory but in
experience; the same native Americans learnt through living practice not
just to understand horses, but to ride them. Dozens of highly persuasive
texts, beginning with the early criticisms of the Soviet experiment by Rosa
Luxemburg and the left Mensheviks, have set out to show that socialism
without democracy is impossible, and that the collapse of the Soviet Union
was linked to the fact that the system was not democratic — that the USSR
could not bring the socialist project to fruition, but was limited to
modernising society and carrying out industrialisation, before settling
back ultimately onto the rails of capitalism. All this, however, alters
nothing. What is needed is practical success, and as soon as it occurs the
discussion will cease of its own accord, just like the discussion about
whether heavier-than-air flying machines were possible. As soon as the
first aircraft took flight, the discussion ended. In our case, all the
“flights” have so far ended in crashes. Not immediately by any means, as we
see in the history of the USSR, but the crashes have occurred nonetheless.
This is the experience that supporters of the right will invariably cite.
We have used our theory to refute their arguments many times, but to no
avail. We need to prove our case in practice.

*Zygmunt Bauman wrote that modern society is incapable of imagining a world
better than the one of which it is currently part. Is it correct to
consider that the declining popularity of the left reflects its lack of an
attractive vision of the future? What should the socialism of the 21st
century be like? How do you regard the idea of a universal basic income?*

Bauman, of course, was correct in what he stated. Only, the answer is not
to be sought in the field of theory. There is nothing more pointless than
trying to imagine a shining future. What we need is practical solutions to
concrete problems. Is a universal basic income such an answer? I am
convinced it is not. In essence, the idea of a UBI is a short-term attempt
to lessen the crisis of demand brought about by neoliberal policies (or
more precisely, by the exhaustion of the resources that neoliberalism used
to create new markets). A UBI involves giving people more money so that
they can buy more. In the long term, this solves nothing even within the
framework of neoliberalism — the stimulus provided by the extra injections
of money will be exhausted, and we will encounter the same problem on a
higher level. Most importantly, a UBI does not presume any structural
changes, either in the field of production or in that of distribution. All
that will happen is that the system of social payments and benefits will be
simplified and reorganised. Bureaucrats will find their work a little
easier. Wages will most likely decline somewhat, since business will
reassign part of the cost of reproducing labour power to the state. No,
this is a complete dead-end, as I have written repeatedly. The left
supports this idea out of impotence, including intellectual impotence. A
genuine left-wing perspective concentrates on reforming and expanding a
renewed (and democratised) social sector, one that features
decommodification, something on which Patrick Bond
<https://links.org.au/author/patrick-bond> has written at length. Various
areas of life such as health care, education, housing, transport and so on
are gradually set free from the market, so that the results of activity
cease being commodities. The process may take a certain time, and it will
not always be simple, but the important thing is the direction of the
changes. The reproduction of human existence, of everyday life and
relationships, must not be reduced to a sum of market transactions.
Meanwhile, the new social factor represented by democratic planning is a
special topic, one that on the whole has been quite well explored. Here I
can cite various works from the 1960s (those of Ota Šik, Włodzimierz Brus
and others), my own book *The Politology of Revolution,* and so forth. All
in all, it is clear what needs to be done, but the question is one of
political will.
‘The fundamental mechanisms of the economic and social system in Russia and
the US, in Iran and Italy, are completely identical’

*The twentieth century was marked by a confrontation between capitalism and
socialism in the course of which a “convergence” took place in the West,
leading to the appearance of the welfare state. Today the crucial conflict
is between the homelands of neoliberal democracy (conventionally described
as the West), and supporters of so-called “traditional values”. What do you
think might arise out of this confrontation? What position should the left
take on it?*

There is no basis today for talking of a systemic confrontation. The
fundamental mechanisms of the economic and social system in Russia and the
United States, in Iran and Italy, are completely identical. The different
ideological forms reflect the peculiarities of the political process in
these countries, and the traditions of the local bureaucracies. We should
recall that in Russia, most of the champions of “traditional values” began
as liberals. In the Middle East, meanwhile, it was precisely Islamists who
implemented many of the neoliberal economic reforms. What is hidden behind
these ideological screens? First of all, a desire to control society (in
this regard it is completely unimportant what the authorities encourage,
whether it is a gay parade or a crusade — the main thing is that there is a
set of practices through which loyalty to the system is ritualised). In
second place is the ambition of the elites of various countries of the
periphery and semi-periphery, through taking advantage of a favourable
conjuncture in the raw materials markets, to raise their status in the
world-system and to establish their own spheres of influence, protected
against competition from the West. If policies of this kind are successful,
former allies will immediately take to tearing each other’s hair out. Most
likely, however, there will not be any successes, because the stakes are
not being placed on socio-economic progress or on technological and
industrial development, but on raw materials markets and military strength.
In other words, the type of development remains thoroughly peripheral, and
a comprehensive modernisation of all aspects of life, such as occurred in
the USSR, does not take place.

It is clear that the left has nothing to gain from involving itself in such
contests, just as it made no sense for workers to distinguish between
“good” and “bad” imperialists during the First World War. It does not
follow from this that there are no differences whatever — there are. But
from the point of view of left strategy, these differences are not the main
thing. We have to take them into account, but we cannot construct our
politics on this basis.

*Why is the left not playing a key role in today’s regime changes, which
people have grown used to calling “revolutions”? Is this proof of a
rejection by the left of revolutionary forms of struggle? Or are classical
revolutions a holdover from the epoch of industrial society, that is, the
Modern epoch, and something that no longer meets the requirements of the
information civilisation that is coming into being?*

The truth is that so-called “colour revolutions” have nothing in common
with revolutions in the political or historical sense. Obviously, democracy
is better than dictatorship. But a transition to democracy, however
conducive it might be to the development of society, is not the same thing
as a revolution. Here the problem is different. Many genuine social
revolutions have also started out with quite superficial political changes,
with democratic overturns, and even with reforms from above. But
subsequently, the process has grown deeper and wider, beginning to affect
the social structures, economic relations, key political institutions,
culture, and so forth. This is when the changes or the overturns spill over
into revolution. It is significant that the leaders of the so-called
“colour revolutions” understand this perfectly. So right from the outset
they do their utmost to restrict and control the process, to stop it
developing further. Everything has to be limited to a change of leadership,
or at most to a partial restructuring of the elites beneath the slogan of
democratisation. The trouble is that as a result, even the formal
democratic gains made during the initial stage are very quickly lost. If
the process is not deepened, it goes backwards. The politics of the left
has to be built precisely on the struggle to deepen and broaden the
process. Without social transformations, democracy will not succeed either.
And if in just a single locality, in a single country, the process bursts
through the bounds of a mere reshuffling of the elites, then we get to see
something completely different — what political science calls a
“revolution”.

*In Latin America in the early 21st century, the “left turn” associated
with Hugo Chávez caused a surge of enthusiasm. But it is hard to describe
today’s Venezuela as a successful country — it is marked by economic
crisis, inflation, and problems with its democracy. Has this “left turn”
come to nothing? Do the governments of Brazil, Chile or Colombia have the
potential to revive it?*

The “socialism of the 21st century” proclaimed by Hugo Chávez was a
beautiful slogan, a pledge that unfortunately could not be fulfilled. The
“left turn” in Latin America is still far from exhausted, but for the
present we cannot talk of its success. Left-wing governments usually rest
on broad but unstable populist coalitions that soon disintegrate after
winning elections. Also, it is often the case that left-wing presidents do
not have a parliamentary majority. All the same, there have been some
successes. In Colombia, Gustavo Petro unexpectedly managed to get his
pension reform bill through parliament, after his health system reform was
defeated. In Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum was elected president, while at the
same time winning a strong majority in the parliament. In general,
Sheinbaum deserves to be paid very careful attention. Her predecessor
[Andrés Manuel] Lopez Obrador left a contradictory legacy. On the one hand,
wages underwent record growth, but on the other, noticeable authoritarian
tendencies appeared. Will Sheinbaum be able to deepen the social reforms,
while at the same time maintaining democratic institutions? I certainly
hope so. But the general conclusion is that for the present, the Latin
American left has not managed to overcome the crisis of strategy that
appeared following the collapse of the Chávez experiment in Venezuela.
‘The extreme right is filling an emotional and political vacuum that has
appeared since the left abandoned class politics’

*In Europe in recent years we have seen growing support for the
ultra-right. In some countries a so-called ‘sanitary cordon’ has been
breached, and right-wing radicals have entered governments. The European
Parliament elections forced us once again to speak of a fascist threat.
Although the ultra-right only increased its representation in the European
Parliament by an insignificant amount, their successes in France and
Germany came as a shock. Is there a danger that right-wing dictatorships
will come to power in Europe? Can today’s ultra-rightists be compared to
fascists? What should the left be doing to counter the threat from the
ultra-right?*

The threat posed to democracy by the ultra-right is real, but for the
present, I do not see any cause for panic. Today’s right-wing radicals are
not the fascists of the 1920s — they have parasitised off the crisis of
neoliberalism, but they are more like populists playing with slogans and
emotions. There is no sign that the representatives of big business have
put their stake on these forces, which have no strategy for rescuing
capital. The extreme right is filling an emotional and political vacuum
that has appeared since the left abandoned class politics, understood
either in the social-democratic or Communist sense, and instead put its
stake on political correctness, on minorities, and so forth. The working
class has felt betrayed, and has in fact been betrayed — this is what the
right-wing populists are playing on. There is nothing here that is
fundamentally new. What is genuinely interesting is the fact that, with the
growth of right-wing populism, a section of the liberal bourgeoisie has
started to panic. This is opening up certain opportunities for the left,
with people looking to left-wing forces as a counterweight to the
ultra-right. It is in France that this shift has been especially
noticeable, but there are also some signs of it in the US and Germany. A
window of opportunity is opening up, and it is essential to take advantage
of it. What is needed in this case, however, is not politically correct
slogans or populist speeches, but specific proposals that in the *new**
<https://links.org.au/black-swan-will-inevitably-alight-boris-kagarlitsky-why-left-movement-will-have-be-constructed#footnote*_Rtq8I7T-a6pwWH-Gshbc3RfbFcz7FZrj70958wObMI_z3mExwiCksQI>
circumstances
will return the trust and support of workers to the left. Let us look to
the policies of [Jean-Luc] Mélenchon in France, and of Claudia Sheinbaum in
Mexico. Nothing has been decided as yet, but some interesting turns are
possible.

*Why have social-democratic parties become champions of neoliberalism, and
why are they more and more often playing the role of junior partners of the
neoliberal political forces?*

Since the 1990s the politics of the social democrats have been reduced to
the principle “if you can’t beat them, join them”. The point is that while
the Soviet bloc, with its repressions, of course discredited socialism, it
also exerted pressure on the West and created favourable conditions there
for social reforms that served workers’ interests. After 1989–91 the
situation changed, and for the social democrats, the relationship of forces
became more adverse. If the social democrats were able to win back
government, or hold onto it, this was through reaching a compromise with
the neoliberals while, at the same time, promising to soften the social
consequences of the neoliberal reforms. The social democrats became
hostages of their neoliberal partners and of their own earlier decisions.
Protests by the party rank and file against these policies took the form of
revolts that finished up being crushed — we might consider the fate of
Jeremy Corbyn in Britain, and also the attempts, using similar methods, to
smother Mélenchon. The trouble is that a victory for the apparatus over the
activists turns into a political void. The apparatus lacks the ability to
develop long-term strategies, meaning that the revolts will be repeated.
‘However many wonderful books we write, we will not find an answer to the
main question, which is: who is going to achieve a decisive breakthrough in
social development, and where, and how?’

*We are now hearing a great deal about decolonisation and neocolonialism.
What dangers does neocolonialism present to the world?*

The term “neocolonialism”, like other items of political vocabulary, is
emotionally fraught while at the same time being exceedingly obscure. What
we need to look at is not the slogans, but the strategies for economic and
social development in the countries of the periphery. It is no accident
that I keep repeating the word “strategy”, perhaps to the point of being
tiresome. We simply have to take account of the consequences of the
decisions we make and accept responsibility for them. What policies are
Global South governments implementing with regard to their own populations?
That’s the main criterion, and everything else is just rhetoric. It is true
that there are global constraints. But when we try to overcome them or
mitigate them, we first of all need to formulate our goals and tasks,
before setting out to understand who and what stands in our way.

*What works by left-wing thinkers that have appeared in the past decade, in
your view, present the most interesting models for a future that differs
both from the “real socialism” of the last century, and from present-day
neoliberalism?*

As I said earlier, it is not a question of theory. The left has no problem
with its thinkers. If we simply need suggestions for interesting reading,
then I recommend the books by Nick Srnicek. There is also the extremely
useful English-language blog by the Marxist economist Michael Roberts
<https://links.org.au/author/michael-roberts>. From the Keynesian left,
there are works by various supporters of Modern Monetary Theory. They are
often misunderstood as arguing that it is simply necessary to print more
money, but this is not in fact what they are talking about. What they are
really saying is that it is necessary to use financial resources to
mobilise material and labour resources for the good of society.

The founders of world-system analysis — [Immanuel] Wallerstein, Samir Amin
and André Gunder Frank — have all now died, and there is a noticeable
crisis in that area. Still, it seems to me that the potential of that
school has not been exhausted. It is also worth keeping in mind the
recently-deceased Singaporean economist Martin Hoare. In short, there is
plenty to read. Even since I have been in prison new books have been coming
out, and I am at risk of falling behind the discussion. The main questions,
however, are not in the field of theory but in that of political practice.
However many wonderful books we write, we will not find an answer to the
main question, which is: who is going to achieve a decisive breakthrough in
social development, and where, and how? Reading and thinking are necessary
not just for their own sake, but so that we can act, and act politically.

‘If we feel that events are repeating themselves, it’s because we’re
thinking in terms of analogies with the past.’

*More and more often, politicians are saying that the epoch of peace is
drawing to a close. Does humanity have any chance of avoiding a Third World
War and a nuclear armageddon? What should the left be doing to prevent this
outcome?*

Let me be quite blunt — if the world’s ruling elites are intent on starting
another world war, we are not going to be able to stop them. In just the
same way, the Second International could not prevent the First World War,
despite embracing the concept of revolution and holding congresses. When
Jean Jaurès tried to do something, they killed him.

All the same, I am an optimist. The global conflict is now developing along
lines quite different from the experience in the 20th century. If we feel
that events are repeating themselves, it is because we are thinking in
terms of analogies with the past: if China and the US fall out over Taiwan,
that means they will inevitably go to war; if Russia gets into a fight with
the European Union, the conflict will necessarily start spreading. None of
this is obvious at all. It seems to me that all of today’s main
international conflicts are now reaching their peak, and the basic concern
of the elites is how to escape from them. But that is where the problem
lies — the elites not finding convenient solutions that allow them to
de-escalate. In all the countries that are involved in conflicts, getting
out of these disputes inevitably comes associated, directly or indirectly,
with domestic crises. Someone has to be branded as guilty, and someone has
to be made to provide compensation to the victims. Someone has to pay in
order to change the relationship of forces within the ruling groups, and
someone has to come up with solutions, not just compromise measures but
workable settlements.

So far, nothing has worked. The historical process is bogged down. Sooner
or later, though, something will happen, and the “catastrophic equilibrium”
will be destroyed. A “black swan” will inevitably alight. I do not exclude,
incidentally, that this “swan” — an absolutely unanticipated phenomenon,
that confounds all preconceptions — alighted long ago and is sitting
somewhere not far off, while we simply fail to notice it, or refuse to see
it.

So what is the task for the left? To carry on with our usual routines is
pointless. When a social process of huge dimensions appears on the scene,
we have to involve ourselves in it, trying to shape it politically, turning
the *needs**
<https://links.org.au/black-swan-will-inevitably-alight-boris-kagarlitsky-why-left-movement-will-have-be-constructed#footnote*_Rtq8I7T-a6pwWH-Gshbc3RfbFcz7FZrj70958wObMI_rhcxiKTa7U8U>
of
the masses into concrete *demands**
<https://links.org.au/black-swan-will-inevitably-alight-boris-kagarlitsky-why-left-movement-will-have-be-constructed#footnote*_s8G20XMVZRVNih2rX-8WoUmpVE9juik49-kKADAhAdo_pdOa99gR5O9I>,
their moods into slogans, and their expectations into a program. Political
work cannot be done in advance, and there is no way a program can simply be
prepared ahead of time and laid on the table while we wait for a suitable
moment. When that moment arrives, the program will, at a minimum, need to
be amended. And the program cannot simply reflect abstract values or ideas.
While based on our values, it has to answer the questions that emerge at a
specific moment marked by a definite — but changing — relationship of
forces.

For left politics — that is, for a successful, transformative and
liberating politics — certain conditions are necessary, conditions created
by a crisis of the elites and by a revitalisation of the masses. This is a
topic that Lenin addressed, and we should note how he called attention to
the fact that the masses of the population are drawn into politics by the
masses themselves. In France, for example, the elections to the European
Parliament didn’t play a big role—the population was passive. But President
Macron, alarmed by the growth of the extreme right, called early elections
for the national parliament, stimulating a public discussion that
politicised society.

We’ll see what new opportunities open up before us in the coming period.
I’m sure that great events, involving massive numbers of people, lie ahead.
On 6/7/2024 9:25 AM, Patrick Bond wrote:

(Vladimir Putin's imprisonment of thousands of war resisters continues;
Boris is one of the highest profile... and after Wednesday's appeal failed,
he's now serving a five year sentence, for a mere joke about the cat that
hung out at the bridge to Crimea.

*Kagarlitsky, 65, was initially fined
<https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/06/05/russian-anti-war-sociologist-fined-for-justifying-terror>
600,000 rubles ($6,600) in December over a since-deleted YouTube video
about the 2022 Crimea bridge explosion. In February, a military court of
appeals reversed that ruling and sentenced
<https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/02/13/russia-toughens-sentence-against-anti-war-sociologist-a84060>
him to five years in prison after an appeal by prosecutors. During
Wednesday’s appeal hearing, Kagarlitsky said
<https://t.me/sotavisionmedia/31297> naming the offending YouTube video
“Explosive Congratulations for Mostik the Cat” — in reference to a real cat
that lived on the Crimea bridge — was “an extremely unfortunate joke.”
However, he argued that his jail term was disproportionate to the offense.*

Not in Putin's Russia, it seems.

If you want to review Boris' new book, *The Long Retreat, *drop me a line
offlist, thanks.)

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/court-rejects-kagarlitskys-appeal-campaign-pledges-redouble-efforts-his-freedom
*Court rejects Kagarlitsky’s appeal: Campaign pledges to redouble efforts
for his freedom*

Boris Kagarlitsky International Solidarity Campaign
<https://www.greenleft.org.au/glw-authors/boris-kagarlitsky-international-solidarity-campaign>

June 7, 2024

Boris Kagarlitsky appearing via video link at his appeal hearing. Photo:
Supplied

“Unjust but not unexpected” is how Suzi Weissman, spokesperson for the
Boris Kagarlitsky International Solidarity Campaign, described the June 5
decision of a Russian court to reject Boris Kagarlitsky’s appeal against a
five-year jail term for “justifying terrorism”.

The court also maintained the ban preventing the well-known Marxist
sociologist and anti-war activist from managing internet sites and
telecommunications channels for two years from the end of his prison
sentence.

Weissman said: “The judges’ draconian decision was no great surprise since
all recent appeals against sentences brought down under Russia’s catch-all
anti-terrorism legislation have been rejected.”
See also

·       Russia: Putin is using terror laws to crush anti-war dissent
<https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/russia-putin-using-terror-laws-crush-anti-war-dissent>

·       Jeremy Corbyn: ‘Boris Kagarlitsky, Russian anti-war activists
deserve our support’
<https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/jeremy-corbyn-boris-kagarlitsky-russian-anti-war-activists-deserve-our-support>

·       Boris Kagarlitsky’s letter from prison: ‘Supporting left-wing
political prisoners is an act of practical solidarity’
<https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/boris-kagarlitskys-letter-prison-supporting-left-wing-political-prisoners-act-practical>

The charge of “justifying terrorism”, which has been widely used against
anti-war activists in the Russian Federation, was brought against
Kagarlitsky on July 25 last year after he made some ironical remarks on the
occasion of the Ukrainian Navy’s July 17 attack on the bridge connecting
Crimea to Russia.

The decision of the body hearing Kagarlitsky’s appeal (the Judicial
Collegium for Military Personnel of the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation) means that he will now remain confined in a penal settlement in
Torzhok (Tver region).

Kagarlitsky’s lawyer, Sergey Erokhov, has already stated on his Telegram
channel (June 5) that he will continue with the appeal process, taking the
case to higher instances of the Russian legal system, starting with the
Praesidium of the Supreme Court and going as far as the Constitutional
Court of the Russian Federation.
International appeal ignored

The appeals court judges refused to budge on Kagarlitsky’s sentence despite
a special appeal from 37 internationally prominent progressive political
figures and intellectuals, including Yanis Varoufakis, Jeremy Corbyn and
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, as well as ministers in the Spanish government and MPs
from France, Portugal, Ireland, Belgium and Brazil.

The signatories emphasised that Kagarlitsky has never advocated terrorist
methods to reach political objectives and that keeping him in jail would
tarnish Russia’s international reputation.

Since his jailing Kagarlitsky has also received offers of university
postings in Brazil and South Africa, while the ongoing petition demanding
his release has attracted more than 18,000 signatures to date.
Increasing repression

The court rejected the two main arguments of Kagarlitsky’s defence
formulated by lawyer Erekhov, namely: “(1) it is impossible to judge a
social scientist … for his professional activities and (2) punishment must
be fair, i.e. it must correspond to the nature of a crime, the degree of
danger it entails for the public and the circumstances in which it is
committed.”

For Weissman, the judges’ “barbarous” decision to ignore such basic legal
criteria reflects the determination of the Vladimir Putin regime to crush
domestic opposition to its war on Ukraine.

“In this context the basic democratic and legal rights of anti-war
activists like Boris Kagarlitsky and thousands of others count for very
little.

“Upholding Boris’s appeal would have set a very bad precedent for the
Kremlin: if his argument had been accepted, why not that of everyone else
condemned for ‘justifying terrorism’?”

Weissman concluded that Kagarlitsky has become a “courageous champion of
peace and symbol of the struggle for the right to freedom of expression,
who has been the victim of a gross but entirely deliberate miscarriage of
justice”.

The Boris Kagarlitsky International Solidarity Campaign will now redouble
its efforts for his release. Details of a new round of initiatives will be
announced soon.

*Contact details: *

*United States: Suzi Weissman NUMBER, Greg Yudin NUMBER*

*Canada: Andrea Levy NUMBER, Quebec: André Frappier NUMBER*

*United Kingdom: Alex Callinicos +44 (0)7703 358909*

*South Africa: Patrick Bond NUMBER*

*Northern Europe: Adam Novak NUMBER Southern Europe: Dick Nichols +34 683
171 461*

*Australia: Fred Fuentes NUMBER *

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/06/05/russian-supreme-court-upholds-sentence-for-jailed-sociologist-kagarlitsky-a85320

*Russian Supreme Court Upholds Sentence for Jailed Sociologist Kagarlitsky
<https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/06/05/russian-supreme-court-upholds-sentence-for-jailed-sociologist-kagarlitsky-a85320>
*

June 5, 2024

[image:
https://static.themoscowtimes.com/image/article_1360/21/TASS_65671278-2.jpg]
Boris Kagarlitsky. Nataliya Kazakovtseva / TASS

Russia’s Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld
<https://tass.ru/proisshestviya/20997789> a five-year prison sentence
against the prominent anti-war sociologist Boris Kagarlitsky on charges of
“justifying terrorism,” state media reported.

Kagarlitsky, 65, was initially fined
<https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/06/05/russian-anti-war-sociologist-fined-for-justifying-terror>
600,000 rubles ($6,600) in December over a since-deleted YouTube video
about the 2022 Crimea bridge explosion. In February, a military court of
appeals reversed that ruling and sentenced
<https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/02/13/russia-toughens-sentence-against-anti-war-sociologist-a84060>
him to five years in prison after an appeal by prosecutors.

During Wednesday’s appeal hearing, Kagarlitsky said
<https://t.me/sotavisionmedia/31297> naming the offending YouTube video
“Explosive Congratulations for Mostik the Cat” — in reference to a real cat
that lived on the Crimea bridge — was “an extremely unfortunate joke.”
However, he argued that his jail term was disproportionate to the offense,
according to the independent news outlet Sotavision.

The state-run TASS news agency reported that Kagarlitsky's defense lawyers
asked Russia’s Supreme Court to replace
<https://tass.ru/proisshestviya/20997257> his jail term with a fine of up
to 1 million rubles ($11,200), arguing that the sociologist had cooperated
with investigators and was not a flight risk. But the Supreme Court sided
with military prosecutors.

Kagarlitsky’s attorney Sergei Yerokhov told TASS he plans to appeal the
verdict with Russia’s Constitutional Court on the grounds that his client
received “excessive” punishment.

Kagarlitsky, a well-known academic and Marxist theorist who has spoken out
against Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, chose to remain in the country
despite the Kremlin’s crackdown on dissent.

Russian authorities labeled Kagarlitsky’s Institute of Globalization and
Social Movements a “foreign agent” in 2018. The academic was himself
designated a “foreign agent” in 2022.
On 5/31/2024 5:03 AM, Patrick Bond wrote:

The Long Retreat: Strategies to Reverse the Decline of the Left

*The Long Retreat: Strategies to Reverse the Decline of the Left*
<https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745350288/the-long-retreat/>

*by Boris Kagarlitsky*

*Foreword by Patrick Bond*

*Pluto Press, order **here*
<https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745350288/the-long-retreat/>*: *
*https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745350288/the-long-retreat/*
<https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745350288/the-long-retreat/>

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February
2022, almost 20,000 Russians have been detained for anti-war activities and
1000 put on trial, mainly on terrorism-related charges, according to
independent human rights group OVD-info <https://en.ovdinfo.org/>. Since
the start of this year, 669 people have been labeled, without trial, as
“extremists and terrorists” by authorities under anti-terror laws. This
takes the total to more than 14,000 since 2014 — the year Russia started
arming separatist forces in Ukraine and annexed Crimea.

Among the highest profile is Boris Kagarlitsky, author of a new book, *The
Long Retreat. *As well as bringing Russian and Western thinkers into
dialogue, the scholar-activist draws upon his experiences as a Russian
dissident since the latter days of the Soviet Union in this detailed
analysis of leftist strategy. As a Marxist, he engages in radical ideas
including Universal Basic Income and decentralised collective ownership, as
well as looking at historical and contemporary examples of revolution and
dissent, covering the left’s response to the war in Ukraine.

Written just before Kagarlitsky’s 2023-24 jailings, *The Long Retreat*
stands as a testament to subversive Russian literature. It asks if the left
can put aside its paralysing sectarianism and conceits of ideological
purity in order to transform society for the benefit of the global working
class. Kagarlitsky believes it can, as long as it is unafraid to look
critically at its own ideas and actions.



-- 
chris chase-dunn   邓宇歌
institute for research on world-systems
university of california-riverside
riverside, ca 92521 USA
mailing address: 2007 mt vernon ave, riverside, ca 92507 usa
Consider using my textbook in your class:
_Social Change: Globalization from the Stone Age to the Present_ Routledge
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Kagarlitsky bday 29 August.png
Type: image/png
Size: 450141 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ucr.edu/pipermail/asa_pews/attachments/20240829/26e3c754/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MYQo00XFNW5NyrWI.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 65327 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ucr.edu/pipermail/asa_pews/attachments/20240829/26e3c754/attachment-0001.jpeg>