What is happening inside Ukraine?
The stunning success of Ukraine’s military counter-offensive in Ukraine’s north east has taken many by surprise and has received widespread comment. Much of the news focuses on Ukraine’s president, Zelensky. Yet like every other country in the world, the class struggle continues in Ukraine. What was the situation of the class struggle before Russia’s imperialist invasion and how has that invasion affected the struggle? What was the situation in the newly liberated areas of Ukraine and how has it changed? What effect has the recent counteroffensive had on the mood within Ukraine? What are the political perspectives for Ukraine? What are the perspectives for the left in Ukraine?
Hear Vladyslav Starodubtsev discuss these and other questions. Vladyslav is a historian of Central and Eastern Europe, a social activist and a member of the Rada (collective leadership body) of the Ukrainian democratic socialist organization Sotsialnyi Rukh
Sponsored by: Ukrainian Socialist Solidarity Campaign
Register by clicking here
Sunday August 28 at noon Eastern time
Simon Rodriguez is a Venezuelan socialist, a frequent writer on Venezuela, author of the book “Why did Chavismo Fail?” , editor of Venezuelan Voices (https://venezuelanvoices.org/) and a member of the Venezuelan Party for Socialism and Freedom.
Simon’s presentation will be followed by an open discussion.
Register for event here: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZcucu2oqzgtHdDOCIT41PZUxATqcrfiD4k6
The Sao Paulo Forum was created in 1990 by the Workers Party of Brazil. Of concern to supporters of international working class solidarity is the influence of the Workers Party and the Sao Paolo Forum around the issue of Russia’s imperialist invasion of Ukraine. The governments of Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba are silent on this issue, and Lula himself has said that Zelensky bears equal blame to Putin for the invasion!
The majority of the Western left gives overt or covert political cover for Russia’s invasion. It is important to understand this process in the “global South” and to make links with those on the left in the global South who have resisted this. The Ukraine Socialist Solidarity Campaign is organizing this meeting as an important step in this direction.
Event Sponsor: Ukrainian Socialist Solidarity Campaign
Sunday, June 5 at 9 p.m. Eastern
Click here to register on Zoom
He teaches at the University of Sydney and Australian Catholic University
See Karadjis article about Ukraine on his site https://mkaradjis.com/
Here he talks at an RPM forum in 2021
and in 2016 he was interviewed by Stanley Heller about starvation in Syria due to Assad sieges
Sponsored by: Ukrainian Socialist Solidarity Campaign
A Harsh Critique of Noam Chomsky's Views on Ukraine
On April 8, Noam Chomsky was in a dialogue with Bill Fletcher, Jr. live on The Real News. Fletcher is a syndicated columnist, a regular media commentator and the former president of the TransAfrica Forum. The discussion was called “A Left Response to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine”. Though Chomsky denounced the Russian invasion of Ukraine, calling it a crime of aggression, it wouldn’t be far wrong to say Chomsky placed all of the blame for Russia’s attack on the U.S. government. The U.S., he said, crossed obvious “red lines” when it was clear that Russia would react violently. The title of the event should have been “Chomsky Calls for Realpolitik for the 21st century.”.... Click here to read the complete article on New Politics
A Polish Professor answers those who tell Ukrainians not to resist the Russian Invasion with Weapons
I read the statement (see below- editor) "What would we do if we were Ukrainians today? Prepare for unarmed resistance and non-cooperation" carefully and after some hesitation I decided to share my views with you and other members of the Resistance Studies Network mailing list. It is absolutely not my intention to be disrespectful and please accept my deepest appreciation of your academic and organising achievements and experience. However, I find your appeal or "statement" very inappropriate and troubling.
I am based in Warsaw and the last three weeks have been quite hectic for us here due to the influx of over 2 million people from Ukraine. Among those who have already escaped the ongoing war are countless BIPOC persons from all over the world. Usually, they are former students who had to abandon their education process in Ukraine and find refuge in Poland or other countries. I have been helping them in a special hostel run by several NGOs. Unfortunately, although I was fully vaccinated, I contracted COVID there and was forced to lock myself up at home for a week. This is the only reason why I am finding some time to comment on the aforementioned statement signed by so many, mostly USA-based distinguished scholars.
Since the Russian invasion began, many Polish cities have been transformed into giant shelters for thousands of refugees, mostly women and children. Polish people are showing unimaginable solidarity and support. We have been dealing with an ever-growing amount of challenges and many of us, myself included, are devoting as much time as possible to humanitarian efforts. Private homes are offered to the Ukrainians and others fleeing the war-torn country. But the worst is yet to come - social and economic consequences of the war will be long-term, both in Ukraine and here, where so many people seek safety.
People of Ukraine have conducted two political revolutions in about ten years. Obviously, there are many varying opinions concerning the political content of these events, however I am hoping that we can agree that they were both expressions of democratic aspirations of the people. Moreover, they were both peaceful mobilisations and although violence did occur over the course of these events in 2004 and 2013-14, it was initiated by the then corrupt Ukrainian regime closely allied with or even controlled by the Kremlin. Now, Ukraine is paying the price of standing up to the latter. I am not sure if you and other signatories of your statement are familiar or even interested in the nature of the longue durée of colonial policies of Russia in Ukraine. I hope you are but your statement demonstrates something very different. I must admit, I find this extremely disturbing.
Apparently, what you are telling the people of Ukraine is: drop your arms and surrender to the unpredictable, extremely violent invader who has never acknowledged your right to perceive your history as your own, because we can provide you with the world's finest expertise on civil non-violent resistance... And we can make you ready to deal with a violent occupation in advance. Are you really sure this is something worth saying to the people of Mariupol these days? Do your recommendations also apply to the regions of Ukraine the invading forces have not been able to reach yet? Should those in Lviv or Ivano-Frankivsk give up in advance? Should they simply subjugate themselves to the ones calling them naturally-born-Nazis while daycares and hospitals are being bombarded in Kharkiv?
Ukraine needs to be armed if it is to survive. Resistance of the local population and the local military units has been unprecedented and surprised Russian forces thoroughly. Appeals for peace and non-violent resistance should be directed further east - to the Russian soldiers, many of whom are taking part in this bloodshed against their will and their Moscovite supervisors, as well as to the Russian society. This is where a non-violent civil resistance is needed most right now. And Russians have already shown that no matter how oppressive their regime might be, many of them are ready to get involved in acts of civil bravery. Why do not you appeal to this side and focus on recommendations to the victims instead?
I am not going to dive deep into the muddy waters of the ongoing debate in which the argument about the so-called "NATO escalation" in the region pops-up. I perceive such an opinion as utterly nonsensical. American imperialism has never needed NATO to start wars - Iraq is just one of recent examples. Also, Americans have lost their interest in CEE long ago. I think that the current war is not something the American imperialism was really looking for as it had been focused on other parts of the world, as you perfectly know.
The "What would we do if we were Ukrainians today? Prepare for unarmed resistance and non-cooperation" statement seems to be a product of fundamental misunderstanding. But let me clarify one thing: if you and your magnificent co-signatories actually were Ukrainians now and you did not feel like taking up arms, it is quite likely you would seek refuge in one of numerous shelters that we, Polish non-violent civil society members, are providing to our Ukrainian sisters and brothers in the face of appalling incompetence and tardiness of the authorities. And I would provide you with such help without reservation.
I would like to kindly ask you to withdraw your name from the list of signatories of the "What would we do if we were Ukrainians today? Prepare for unarmed resistance and non-cooperation" and encourage others to follow you.
I believe the academic world should stand in solidarity with the People of Ukraine viciously attacked by Russian imperialism and contribute to all kinds of viable support. Not tell the Ukrainians to surrender when they have not even lost the military confrontation yet.
What would we do if we were Ukrainians today?
Prepare for unarmed resistance and non-cooperation
As peace, conflict and resistance scholars we ask ourselves the same question as many other people these days: What would we do if we were Ukrainians? We hope we would be brave, selfless and fight for a free Ukraine based on the knowledge we have. Resistance always requires self-sacrifice. Yet there are effective ways to resist invasion and occupation which do not involve arming ourselves or others, and which will lead to less loss of Ukrainian lives than military resistance.
We thought about how, if we were living in Ukraine and had just been invaded, we would best defend the Ukrainian people and culture. We understand the logic behind the Ukrainian government’s appeal for weapons and soldiers from abroad. However, we conclude that such a strategy will only prolong the pain and lead to even greater death and destruction. We recall the wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq and Libya, and we would aim to avoid such a situation in Ukraine.
The question then remains; what would we do instead to protect the Ukrainian people and culture? We look with respect at all soldiers and brave civilians fighting for Ukraine; how can this powerful willingness to fight and die for a free Ukraine serve as a real defence of Ukrainian society? Already, people all over Ukraine are spontaneously using nonviolent means to fight the invasion; we would do our best to organise a systematic and strategic civil resistance. We would use the weeks and maybe even months now, during which time some areas of western Ukraine may remain less affected by military fighting, to prepare us and other civilians for what lies ahead.
Instead of investing our hope in military means, we would immediately set about training as many people as possible in civil resistance, and aim to better organise and coordinate the civil resistance that is already happening spontaneously. Research in this area shows that unarmed civil resistance under many circumstances is more effective than armed struggle. Fighting an occupying power is always difficult, no matter what means are used. However, in Ukraine, there is knowledge and experience that peaceful means can lead to change, as during the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Maidan Revolution in 2014. Now the circumstances are very different, yet Ukrainian people can use the coming weeks to learn more, spread this knowledge and build networks, organisations and infrastructure that can fight for Ukrainian independence in the most effective way. Today there is comprehensive international solidarity with Ukraine, support we can count on being extended to unarmed resistance in future. We would focus our efforts on four areas:
First, we would establish and continue relations with Russian civil society which are supporting Ukraine. Even though they are under severe pressure, there are human rights groups, independent journalists and ordinary citizens taking big risks in order to resist the war. It is important that we know how to keep in touch with them in the years ahead through encrypted communication, and we need knowledge and infrastructure on how to do this. Our greatest hope for a free Ukraine is that the Russian population overthrow Putin and his regime through a nonviolent revolution, although we would not sit passively and wait for it to happen. We also acknowledge the brave resistance to Lukashenko and his regime in Belarus, who should also continue to be connected and coordinated with in a similar manner to resisters in Russia.
Second, we would disseminate knowledge about the principles of nonviolent resistance. Nonviolent resistance is based on a certain logic, and adhering to a principled line of nonviolence is an important part of this. We are not just talking about morality, but about what is most effective under the circumstances. Some of us might have been tempted to kill Russian soldiers if we saw the opportunity, but we understand that it is not in our interest in the long run. Killing only a few Russian soldiers will not lead to any military success, but is likely to delegitimise everyone involved in civil resistance. It will make it harder for our Russian friends to stand on our side and easier for Putin to claim we are terrorists. When it comes to violence, Putin has all the cards in his hand, so our best chance is to play a completely different game. Ordinary Russians have learned to think of Ukrainians as their brothers and sisters, and we should take maximum advantage of this. If Russian soldiers are forced to kill many peaceful Ukrainians who resist in a courageous manner, the morale of the occupying soldiers will greatly decrease, desertion will increase, and the Russian opposition will be strengthened. This solidarity from ordinary Russians is our biggest trump card, meaning we must do everything we can to ensure that Putin’s regime does not have the opportunity to change this perception of Ukrainians.
Third, we would disseminate knowledge about methods of nonviolent resistance, especially those that have been used with success during invasions and occupations. In those areas of Ukraine already occupied by Russia, and in the event of a prolonged Russian occupation, we would want ourselves and other civilians to be prepared to continue the struggle. An occupying power needs stability, calm and cooperation in order to carry out the occupation with the least amount of resources. Nonviolent resistance during occupation is about non-cooperation with all aspects of the occupation. Depending on what aspects of the occupation are most despised, potential opportunities for nonviolent resistance include strikes in the factories, building a parallel school system, or refusing to cooperate with the administration. Some nonviolent methods are about gathering many people in visible protests, although during an occupation, this can be associated with great risk. It is probably not the time for the large demonstrations which characterised Ukraine's previous nonviolent revolutions. Instead, we would focus on more dispersed actions that are less risky, such as boycotts of Russian propaganda events, or coordinated stay at home days, which could bring the economy to a standstill. The possibilities are endless, and we can draw inspiration from countries occupied by the Nazis during World War II, from East Timor's independence struggle or other countries occupied today, such as West Papua or Western Sahara. The fact that Ukraine’s situation is unique does not preclude us from learning from others.
Fourth, we would establish contact with international organisations such as Peace Brigades International or Nonviolent Peaceforce. Over the past 40 years, organisations like these have learned how international observers can make a significant difference to local human rights activists living with threats to their lives. Their experience from countries such as Guatemala, Colombia, Sudan, Palestine and Sri Lanka can potentially be developed to fit the circumstances in Ukraine. It might take a while to implement, yet over the long term, they could be able to organise and send Russian civilians to Ukraine as "unarmed bodyguards" as part of international teams. It will be more difficult for Putin's regime to commit atrocities against the Ukrainian civilian population if civilian Russians witness it, or if witnesses are citizens of countries that are maintaining friendly relations with his regime—for example China, Serbia or Venezuela.
If we had the Ukrainian government's backing for this strategy, as well as access to the same economic resources and technological expertise that now goes to military defence, the strategy we propose would have been easier to implement. If we had started preparing a year ago, we would have been much better equipped today. Nevertheless, we believe unarmed civil resistance has a good chance of defeating a potential future occupation. For the Russian regime, carrying out an occupation will require money and personnel. Maintaining an occupation will be even more costly if the Ukrainian population engages in massive non-cooperation. Meanwhile, the more peaceful the resistance, the more difficult it is to legitimise the oppression of those who resist. Such resistance would also ensure good relations with Russia in the future, which will always be the best guarantee of Ukraine's security with this powerful neighbour in the East.
Of course, we who are living abroad in safety have no right to tell Ukrainians what to do, but if we were Ukrainians today, this is the path we would choose. There is no easy way, and innocent people are going to die. However, they are already dying, and if only the Russian side is using military force, the chances of preserving Ukrainian lives, culture and society are much higher.
Endowed Professor Stellan Vinthagen, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA
Associate Professor Majken Jul Sørensen, Østfold University College, Norway
Professor Richard Jackson, University of Otago, New Zealand
Matt Meyer, Secretary General, International Peace Research Association
Dr. Craig Brown, University of Massachusetts Amherst, United Kingdom
Professor emeritus Brian Martin, University of Wollongong, Australia
Jörgen Johansen, independent researcher, Journal of Resistance Studies, Sweden
Professor emeritus Andrew Rigby, Coventry University, UK
President of International Fellowship of Reconciliation Lotta Sjöström Becker,
Henrik Frykberg, Revd. Bishops advisor on interfaith, ecumenics and integration, Diocese of Gothenburg, Church of Sweden
Professor Lester Kurtz, George Mason University, United States
Professor Michael Schulz, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Professor Lee Smithey, Swarthmore College, United States of America
Dr. Ellen Furnari, independent researcher, United States
Associate Professor Tom Hastings, Portland State University, USA
Doctoral candidate Rev. Karen Van Fossan, Independent researcher, United States
Educator Sherri Maurin, SMUHSD, USA
Advanced Lay Leader Joanna Thurmann, Diocese of San Jose, United States
Professor Sean Chabot, Eastern Washington University, United States
Professor emeritus Michael Nagler, UC, Berkeley, USA
MD, Former Adjunct Professor John Reuwer, St. Michaels College & World BEYOND War, United States
PhD, retired professor Randy Janzen , Mir Centre for Peace at Selkirk College, Canada
Dr. Martin Arnold, Institute for Peace Work and Nonviolent Conflict Transformation, Germany
PhD Louise CookTonkin, Independent Researcher, Australia
Mary Girard, Quaker, Canada
Director Michael Beer, Nonviolence International, USA
Professor Egon Spiegel, University of Vechta, Germany
Professor Stephen Zunes, University of San Francisco, United States
Dr Chris Brown, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
Executive Director David Swanson, World BEYOND War, US
Lorin Peters, Christian Peacemaker Teams, Palestine/USA
*** Not Another Nickel for Israel's Crimes. End the "Aid"
*** Dismantle Israeli Apartheid
*** Save Sheikh Jarrah
*** Shame on Biden - His Foreign Policy is the Same as Trump
*** BDS Now - Boycott!!! See BDSmovement.net
*** Unity of All Liberating Forces from Palestine to Syria to #BLM
*** Unions, State Governments: Sell Off Your Israel Bonds
*** End the Deadly Exchange of U.S. and Israeli Police
*** Our Fury is with Israeli Apartheid, not with Israelis or Jews
-Not another nickel, not another dime. No more money for Israel's crimes
-From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free
-From the river to the sea, freedom and equality
-Gaza, Gaza don't you cry. Palestine will never die
-1, 2, 3, 4, Occupation out the door
- Bennett, Netanyahu, both the same. Only difference is the name
-Trump, Biden, both the same. Only difference is the name.
For years a collection of people in the "West" have aided Assad, Putin, and other "authoritarians" by slandering, confusing and lying about people standing up for their rights in countries not allied to the U.S. Whether they're bloggers, singers, academics, or journalists they all think they know better than the local people (or those exiled) from the country. Claiming to be anti-imperialist, they put on blinders when faced with facts about the imperialist acts, oppression or murders carried on by their favorites.
This panel won't be academic. After 10 years of the Syrian uprising and years of tyranny in Venezuela and Nicaragua we will mercilessly examine, dissect, and condemn.
Saturday, May 8 at 5 p.m. Eastern on Zoom
(Link to Register Coming Soon)
Shiyam Galyon is a member of the Syrian Women’s Political Movement, a multi-national network of Syrian women working for political justice for all Syrians.
Her work and writing focuses on internationalist antiwar issues, with a specific focus on Syria and she has written previously for Al Jazeera, HuffPost, Bright Magazine, and Warscapes Magazine. Previously, Shiyam worked to create scholarships for refugee and displaced students at Books Not Bombs and is currently the communications coordinator at War Resisters League, the oldest secular antiwar organization in the United States.
Linda Quiquivix (“Kiki”) is a popular educator, geographer, and translator based in California. She is daughter of the undocumented migrant community in California and granddaughter of the Mam (Maya) people of Guatemala and Mexico. She places her university training as a geographer at the service of under-resourced communities in Palestine, Mexico, and the U.S. who seek clean water, land, and tools to build autonomy. In her hometown of Oxnard, California, she is part of a collective of seed savers and farmers who intervene against food insecurity, rebuild respectful ecological relationships to Mother Earth, and collectively organize toward climate resilience. She’s also a writer and researcher, currently working on a book manuscript entitled. Palestine and the Wretched of Empire: Race, Cartography, and the Afterlives of 1492, which traces the uses of cartography and international law in Palestine/Israel to show how movement leaders come to replicate domination when the world of empire becomes the starting point for politics.
Michael Karadjis teaches Social Sciences and International Development at Western Sydney University. His involvement in political activity began when he marched against the Vietnam War as a young high school student. In recent times he has been involved in a number of solidarity campaigns, including the Palestine Human Rights Campaign; Syria Solidarity Australia; and Agent Orange Justice. He blogs on Syria at Syrian Revolution Commentary and Analysis.
Moderator: to be named.
Open Letter to Editors of Jacobin Magazine and Monthly Review :
Stop Racist and Misogynist Attacks on the Emergent Indigenous, Eco-Feminist Left in Latin America, and Address the Crisis in Today's Ecuador
We, the signatories of this letter, have to come together to demand the retraction or clarification of two recent articles that smear political movements and leaders in Ecuador. The gains of Yaku Pérez and the coalition around the Pachakutik party in the 7 February 2021 elections represent an exciting and emergent new left comprised of Indigenous organizations, eco-socialist politics, feminist and LGBTQ+ activists, anti-racist movements, and anti-extractivist causes. On 24 February 2021, these movements came together in the streets of Ecuador, to demand that every vote be counted. Silencing and discrediting Ecuadoran voices as well as new popular movements—while demanding fealty to state capitalist leaders associated with the extractivist “left” in Ecuador and across the region—must end. Ben Norton’s “How Ecuador’s US-backed, coup-supporting ‘ecosocialist’ candidate Yaku Pérez aids the right-wing,” (republished by the Monthly Review on 8 February 2021)  and Denis Rogatyuk’s “Ecuador’s Election Was a Massive Repudiation of Neoliberalism” (published in Jacobin Magazine on 18 February) do not reflect the traditions of Monthly Review—the “longest continuously published socialist magazine in the United States.”  Both articles contradict Jacobin’s founders goal to develop a “product of a younger generation not quite as tied to the Cold War paradigms that sustained the old leftist intellectual milieu.”  The editors’ openness to new generations is at odds with the sustained offensive against a new Indigenous eco-socialist and feminist political left in Latin America.
Rogatyuk’s article in Jacobin condemns the eco-socialist candidate Pérez and his partner, Manuela Picq, pointing out they “have for years attempted to portray Correa as an anti-Indigenous, anti-environment leader that pursues an ‘extractivist’ model of development.” Yes, they have, as have most independent social scientists who have looked at the wreckage of the Correa legacy.  There is a vibrant, Indigenous, and youth-led coalition of leftists who have critiqued Correa’s misuse of “el buen vivir” principles in his policies. These policies nourished new extractive industries. Under Correa, the state criminalized Indigenous groups, LGBTQ+ populations, and exploited new mining resources and areas such as Yasuní. Rogatyuk mocks the new left in Ecuador as a “ragbag” and “surreal” group who “absurdly” make claims about the partiality of electoral commissions. Rogatyuk overlooks the extensive and historic struggles of Indigenous identity, genocide and sovereignty, as well as the multiple battles against extractivism and ecological devastation, gendered injustices, political/social misogyny,  and homophobia. The article willfully ignores the organizational and social momentum and innovation that fueled Pérez’s electoral success. It ignores these movements’ critiques of extractivist statism and monolithic personalism. Rogatyuk suggested that “Pérez’s political record suggests he is a Trojan horse for the left’s most bitter enemies.”
Similarly, Norton’s Monthly Review article disdainfully dismisses environmentalists, whose critiques of extractivism or racist policies of the statist left he portrayed as “opening up space for the right.” The author singles out “Extinction Rebellion” as a right-wing tool. He rages against the language of “decoloniality” and the eco-socialist left’s critique of statist leaders’ complicity with whiteness and colonial-economic and social legacies. In a typically authoritarian thrust, the article demonizes anyone who allies themselves with NGOs, branding them as supporters of imperialism.
Norton’s widely circulated Monthly Review article aimed at fracturing the left and eroding social movement support for Pérez as an alternative. The piece was published at a crucial moment in the Ecuadorian presidential election. Conventional media outlets have used it to discredit and damage a candidate of the eco-socialist/Indigenous/feminist left. Norton’s article wove together a series of Pérez’s tweets critiquing the statist and extractivist left. Of course, many members of the progressive left, including some of us writing this letter, disagreed with these proclamations as well as Pérez’s support of neoliberal candidates as a strategy to defeat authoritarian elements. But we contextualize these positions. The Monthly Review article spotlights Manuela Picq, Pérez’s partner, in a misogynist and homophobic diatribe that mocks and attacks her feminist, queer studies, and eco-social politics. Generating absurd conspiracy narratives, this article designates her body as evidence of Pérez’s imperialist complicity. It stinks of rumor-mongering, noting that she took classes at Princeton in a building named after Ronald Reagan, as if this would prove that she was a stooge of the Reagan administration. At age 25, Picq was part of a civil society dialogue in the FTAA negotiation process where she organized critics of the FTAA. Instead of mentioning this history of radical praxis, she is accused of being a “CIA cutout” and an agent of “billionaire George Soros,” a familiar anti-Semitic accusation. She is also incriminated for teaching classes in queer studies and feminist theory. The author claims that because Picq teaches “Latinx Studies” and “Queering Notions of Modernity,” she is an enemy of global class struggle and complicit with imperialism. Norton does not acknowledge the long list of Picq’s other publications on queer theory, international relations, social movement struggles, or resistance to authoritarianism. Most tellingly, the author does not mention that Picq was arrested and deported from Ecuador by the Correa government for having participated in united Indigenous, feminist, and anti-extractivist protests.
These two articles do not explore in detail the context of Pérez’s political momentum in the organization and revitalization of CONAIE—the Indigenous confederation that led the largest set of protests in Ecuadorian history in October 2019, uniting Indigenous groups, feminists, students, and workers movements to fight back against the imposition of a wrenching IMF accord and to demand the end to ecocidal plunder and land dispossession. This moment consolidated the leadership of a younger generation. CONAIE’s legacy, of uniting movements in October 2019, lent popular and movement support to Pérez’s candidacy and might bring him perhaps to second place in the polling. The article does not mention the historic October 2019 uprising or CONAIE and Pérez’s roles in it.
We are concerned that a significant number of today’s left-wing actors, across the Americas and the world, align themselves with extractivism, agrobusiness, authoritarian statism,  and stand against Indigenous, anti-racist, and anti-patriarchal movements, ideas, and leaders. We worry that the former is acting to eject the latter from the conversation by labeling them as right-wingers and allies of imperialism. We should not be distracted from the wave of violent, ultra-racist “populism,” and military and parliamentary coups that have swept the region in the past years. It is exactly these authoritarian developments that make it irresponsible and dangerous to brand those who critique the extractivist left as allies of Yankee imperialists or sympathetic to Bolsonaro-type populists who are encouraging genocide, femicide, racial exterminations, and homophobic assassinations. We stand against authoritarian statism focusing on individual male populist figures and armed, militarized “machocratic” patriarchy. Against this model, a new progressive alternative for the left has been emerging—led by Indigenous, Black, and feminist as well as class and worker-identified justice movements—to advocate redistribution of wealth, land, and autonomies to forge new modes of collective, bodily, and eco-social participation and rights.
After Ecuador’s 7 February 2021 election, civil society groups across Ecuador raised concerns that an effort was underway to “find votes” needed to bring Lasso’s totals above Pérez’s. This would serve both sides of what Chilean writer Andrés Kogan Valderrama has labeled the “binary” political equation  of extractivist left and neoliberal right. Both sides saw Pérez as the most threatening opponent, for he might win and, more than that, dismantle the binary political equation that has been making true redistribution and eco-social justice unimaginable. The Ecosocialist Feminist Network stated, “We reject the role that ‘Correismo’ [Rafael Correa’s regime] has played in this moment, exacerbating racism and delegitimizing social struggle through media campaigns…We know that the struggle continues and what will be the mobilization and unity of the popular field will permit us to sustain the gains accumulated in October  and resistance against this system of death.”  We deplore the demonization of both Pérez and movements that brought him so close to the run-off election. A left-wing global community deserves better, and we call on the editors of Monthly Review and Jacobin to reject these simplistic and dangerous analyses which feed right wing structures of hate in Latin America.
Paul Amar, Professor, Director of Orfalea Center, University of California, Santa Barbara
Sonia Correa, Co-Chair, Sexuality Policy Watch
Ghaitai Paul Males Castañeda, Comunidad Indígena de Compañía, Líder Espiritual Cristiano-Andino de Jóvenes
Macarena Gómez-Barris, Professor, Pratt Institute
Mara Viveros Vigoya, Profesora Titular, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, LASA President (2019-2020)
Lisa Duggan, Professor, New York University
Cristina Yépez Arroyo, McGill University
J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Professor, Wesleyan University
William C. Smith, Professor Emeritus, University of Miami
Rita Laura Segato, Professor, Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina
Pamela Martin, Professor, Coastal Carolina University
Mario Pecheny, Professor, University of Buenos Aires
Cruz Caridad Bueno, Assistant Professor of Black Studies, SUNY-New Paltz
Javiera Barandiaran, Associate Professor, University of California, Santa Barbara
Michelle Artieda, Florida International University
Mieke Verloo, Professor, Radboud University, The Netherlands
Lena Lavinas, Professor, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Sherene R Seikaly, Associate Professor, University of California, Santa Barbara
Gita Sen, DAWN (Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era), Fiji
Gloria Careaga, Facultad de Psicología, UNAM, Mexico
Rosalind Petchesky, Distinguished Professor Emerita, Hunter College &The Graduate Center, CUNY
Rina Pakari Marcillo, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador
Steve Stein, Senior Professor, University of Miami
Markus Thiel, Associate Professor, Florida International University
Dominique Chiriboga, Activista Feminista y LGBT, Ecuador
Flavio Carrera V., Project Coordinator, Universidad San Francisco de Quito
Daniela Cabascango, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO), Ecuador
Kiran Asher, UMass, Amherst
Carolina Benalcázar, Concordia University
Fernando Luz Brancoli, Associate Professor, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Diana Coryat, Universidad Andina Simon Bolivar, Ecuador
Bila Sorj, Professor, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
Pablo Ospina Peralta, Docente de la Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Quito, Ecuador
Antonia Carcelen-Estrada, Profesora investigadora, Universidad San Francisco de Quito/Northumbria University
Jennyfer Masaquiza, Universidad San Francisco de Quito
Claudia Sofía Garriga-López, California State University, Chico
David Paternotte, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Carlos de la Torre, Director, Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida
Miriam Lang, Professor, Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Ecuador
Carmen Diana Deere, Distinguished Professor Emerita, University of Florida; LASA President (1992-1994)
Arturo Escobar, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Guilherme Leite Gonçalves, Professor, Rio de Janeiro State University
Johannes Waldmüller, Research Professor, Universidad de Las Américas, EPN
Sylvia Cifuentes, University of California, Santa Barbara
Larry Lohmann, The Corner House (Environmental and Social Justice), UK
Gareth Dale, Brunel University, UK
Alvaro Jarrin, Associate Professor, College of the Holy Cross
Alberto J. Olvera, Profesor Titular, Instituto de Investigaciones Histórico-Sociales, U Veracruzana, Mexico
Benjamin Arditi, Professor of Politics, UNAM, Mexico
Margarita López Maya, CENDES-UCV, Venezuela
Les Levidow, Senior Research Fellow, Open University, UK
Javier Corrales, Professor, Amherst College
Patrick Bond, Professor, University of the Western Cape, South Africa
Joan Martinez-Alier, ICTA, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Catalonia (Spain)
Zillah Eisenstein, writer, Prof. Emerita, Ithaca College
Iokiñe Rodriguez, Seniour Lecturer, University of East Anglia, UK
Rehad Desai, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
Cristina Vega, Profesora Investigadora, FLACSO Ecuador
Muhammad Reza Sahib, KRuHA - people's coalition for the right to water, Indonesia
Monroe Edwin Jeffrey, International Tribal Association, United States
Francesco Martone, Senatore della Repubblica, Italia
Barry Gills, University of Helsinki, Finland
Pedro Gutiérrez Guevara, Researcher, Kaleidos Center of Interdisciplinary Ethnography, Ecuador
Rosemary E. Galli, independent researcher, Observatório das Nacionalidades, UK
Elisa Van Waeyenberge, SOAS University of London, UK
Markus Kröger, Associate Professor, University of Helsinki, Finland
Gabriel Roldos, ROLPRO SAS Publishing House, Ecuador
Tom Kucharz, Ecologistas en Acción, Spain
Lisa Rofel, Professor Emeritus and Research Professor, Co-Director, Center for Emerging Worlds, UC Santa Cruz
Marcelo Coelho, Journalist, Folha de São Paulo, Brasil
Alejandro Bendaña, Activist, Nicaragua
John Francis Foran, Professor, University of California, Santa Barbara
Melissa Weiner, Associate Professor, College of the Holy Cross
Ashish Kothari, Global Tapestry of Alternatives, India
Elisabeth de Souza Lobo, Psychologue, Université Paris 7, France
Noah Zweig, Investigador Independiente, Ecuador
Devin Beaulieu, University of California, San Diego
Bárbara Sepúlveda Hales, Asociación de Abogadas Feministas, Chile
Eng-Beng Lim, Director of Dartmouth Consortium of Studies in Race, Migration, and Sexuality; Assoc Professor WGSS, Dartmouth College
Pallav Das, Editor, Radical Ecological Democracy
Roxana Erazo, University of Toronto
Santiago Acosta, Lecturer of Spanish, University of California, Davis
Andrea Sempértegui, Lafayette College, USA
Najwa Mayer, Postdoctoral Fellow, Dartmouth
Judith Butler, Professor, University of California, Berkeley
Marisol de la Cadena, Professor, University of California-Davis
Benjamin Arditi, Professor of Politics, UNAM, Mexico
Rosa Jijón Co-founder, A4C Arts for the Commons, Italy
Donald E.Pease, Professor, Dartmouth College, USA
Grace Delgado, Data Analyst, Dagan Inc., Estados Unidos
Tamra L. Gilbertson, Professor, University of Tennessee and Indigenous Environmental Network
Danid Barkin, Distinguished Professor, Metropolitan Autonomous University, Mexico
Jai Sen, Researcher and listserve curator
Catherine Szpunt, Occupational Therapist, BOE, USA
Fabio Luis Barbosa dos Santos, Professor, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brasil
Hugo Ceron-Anaya, Associate Professor, Lehigh University, United States
Salvador Schavelzon, Professor, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brasil
André Luiz de Oliveira Domingues, farm worker, DSA IC Americas, USA
Mia Yee, alumni, College of the Holy Cross
Juan Wahren, Investigador y Profesor, Universidad de Buenos Aires/ CONICET
Pablo Solón, Fundación Solón, Bolivia
Gina Vargas, Feminista, Peru
Sandra Macedo, Sociologa e artista visual, Brasil
Eduardo Erazo Acosta, Professor, University Nariño, Colombia
Judith Dellheim, Researcher, Zukunftskonvent Germany, Deutschland
Silvia Spitta, Dartmouth College, USA
Carolyn D'Cruz, La Trobe University, Australia
Dr MK Dorsey, Club of Rome, Spain
Didice Godinho Delgado, Activist, Germany
S A Hamed Hosseini, Alternative Futures Research Network, Common Alternatives, U Newcastle, Australia
Céline Veríssimo, Associate Professor, Federal University of Latin American Integration, Brazil
Nina Isabella Moeller, Associate Professor, Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, England, UK
Kevin Bruyneel, Professor, Babson College, United States
JM Pedersen, Honorary Research Fellow, Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University
Julien-François Gerber, researcher & teacher, Institute of Social Studies, The Netherlands
Mirella Pretell Gomero, Syracuse University
Pamela Calla, Profesor, New York University
A. Naomi Paik, Associate Professor, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Carla Rodrigues, UFRJ, Brasil
Gayatri Gopinath, Professor, New York University
Teresa Armijos Burneo, Lecturer, University of East Anglia, UK
Trevor Hirsche, Instructor, Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Bolivia
Josefina Saldaña-Portillo, Professor, New York University
Stefania Barca, Zennström Professor of Climate Change Leadership, Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Éric Fassin, Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies, Paris 8 University (Vincennes - Saint-Denis)
Suzana Sawyer, Associate Professor, University of California, Davis
Cristina Rojas, Professor, Carleton University, Canada
Nadine Lefaucheur, CNRS Retraitée, Martinique France
Helena Hirata, Directrice de Recherche Emérito, CNRS, France
Angela Freitas, Coletivo Feminista 4D, Brasil
Dennis Altman Professor, LaTrobe University, Australia
Isabelle Stengers, Prof. emerita, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Emmanuelle Picard, Assistant Professor, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, France
Valentine Olivera, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne
Picard Elodie, OpenEdition, France
Daniel Fischer, Food Not Bombs, USA
Margaret Wiener, Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Ana María Goldani, Brazil LAB, Princeton University
Paola Minoia, University Lecturer, University of Helsinki, Finland
Lucas Savino, Associate Professor, Western University, Past-Chair of Ethnicity, Race and Indigenous Peoples Section (LASA)
Marco Aurelio Maximo Prado, Professor, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil
Breno Bringel, Professor, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Tristan Partridge, Research Fellow, University of California, Santa Barbara
Geoff Goodwin, London School of Economics, UK
Aida Matilde Marcillo Perugachi, Concejala del Canton Otavalo, Ecuador
Stalin Herrera, Instituto de Estudios Ecuatorianos, Ecuador
George Yudice, Professor, University of Miami
Malvika Gupta, University of Oxford, UK
Aida Luz Lopez, Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de Mexico
Enrique Leff, Senior Researcher/Professor, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Giorgos Kallis, Professor, ICTA-UAB, Spain
Mariana Walter, Phd. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain
Angus McNelly, Queen Mary University of London, UK
Dalena Tran, Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA-UAB), Spain
Isabelle Darmon, Lecturer in Sociology and Sustainable Development, University of Edinburgh
Bárbara Sepúlveda Hales, Asociación de Abogadas Feministas, Chile
John Cavanagh, Director, Institute for Policy Studies, USA
Anna Storti, Dartmouth College, USA
Robin Broad, Professor, American University, USA
Alberto Acosta, Expresidente de la Asamblea Constituyente (2007-2008), Ecuador
Marinalva de Sousa Conserva/ Profa. Dra., Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Brasil
Maria aparecida Ramos, Assembleia Legislativa da Paraíba, Brasil
Bryan Winston, Dartmouth College, USA
Margherita Scazza, University of Edinburgh, UK
Anne Petermann, Executive Director, Global Justice Ecology Project
Mateo Martínez Abarca, National Autonomous University of México, Ecuador
Kristina Lyons, Assistant Professor, University of Pennsylvania, USA
Clara Keane, Occidental College, USA
Edgardo Lander, Citizen's Platform in Defense of the Constitution, Venezuela
Julio César Díaz Calderón, University of Florida, México
Brooke Binkowski, anti-disinformation/border journalist, TruthOrFiction.com; previously UC San Diego
Christian Gros, Professeur Honoraire, Institut des hautes études de l'Amérique latine, Paris
Paula Castells Carrión, FARO (Foundation for the Advance of Reforms and Opportunities), Ecuador
Ximena Francisca Andrade Jorquera, docente e investigadora, UEM FLCS, Mozambique
There is extensive literature that examines how the period of Rafael Correa's government as a time of impunity and human rights violations. See: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8675.12117
 In 2017, CONAIE fought to get amnesty for all activists of the indigenous movement who had been prosecuted and sentenced for protesting Correa’s government and Chinese mining companies, and defending water resources. The government misused anti-terrorism laws dating from the 1970s military dictatorship to incarcerate indigenous leaders protesting extractivism. At that time, 98 individuals faced criminal prosecutions for resistance to authority, terrorism, sabotage, etc. See: https://www.planv.com.ec/historias/politica/conaie-la-lucha-la-amnistia
 See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2013/oct/15/ecuador-president-misleading-yasuni
 Correa’s sabatinas, weekly speeches televised in different locations around the country on Saturdays, were spaces which could last up to three hours. There he presented his visions and proposals, and attacked citizens, journalists, human rights activists, academics, and environmentalists. The Media Observatory of Ecuador (OME) has counted 95 grievances against women and for sexist language in the 152 Correa’s weekly speeches between 2013 and 2016.
On Saturday December 28, 2013, one of the last during Correa’s first administration, the former president criticized "gender ideology." On the same occasion, Correa affirmed “defending the traditional family” and declared opposition to abortion "has nothing to do with the left or the right," but are simple “moral issues.” See full video here: https://youtu.be/ODXFdqtGsyo?t=6341
 See: https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/case/case-history-manuela-picq
 In 2013, Rafael Correa issued Executive Decree No. 16 to control NGOs and establish limitations on the independent and autonomous functioning of unions and social organizations. The decree was harshly criticized by local and international organizations. https://sobrevivientes.planv.com.ec/decreto-16-y-las-amenazas-a-las-ong/
Correa arbitrarily punished journalists who did not agree with him and actively attacked indigenous environmental activists who opposed oil and gas extraction or open-pit mining on their lands. https://rsf.org/en/news/what-future-free-speech-ecuador-after-presidential-election
Denouncing the Trump Attempt at Military Domination of the United States
A Black man was slowly murdered in Minneapolis to the horror of the world. It has led to enormous protests in over 75 U.S. cities and in other cities around the world.
Rather than deal with pervasive racism in our society and the militarization and brutalization of U.S. police forces, the president is demanding that governors flood their states with National Guard troops and he threatens to send regular army troops into U.S. cities to enforce what he says is the law.
We know what he has in mind. Right after his speech on June 1 he had DC police use tear gas to clear peaceful protesters from a path the president took to visit a damaged church for a photo op.
This is the exact opposite of what is needed.
The turning of U.S. police into paramilitary forces, armed to the teeth and trained to see citizens as enemies can only end in unjustified violence against the people. We remember that 50 years ago National Guard troops massacred students after a protest at Kent State. In contrast look at what is happening in Newark, New Jersey this past week. Over 10,000 protested, but the Newark police did not dress in military gear and did not tear gas or pepper spray crowds. So the people of Newark marched displaying righteous anger, but there were no police cars set ablaze, no storefronts smashed and no arrests.
Without offering any evidence the president claims that there is a group called Antifa whose members are terrorists, and which is leading and directing violence at anti-racist protests. Already one of his followers, Rep. Matt Gaetz, referring to Antifa, demands we “hunt them down” like the U.S. hunts down people in the Middle East. His incendiary words easily could inspire someone to start shooting semi-automatic weapons into a crowd of protesters.
In his June 1st speech the president demands something he calls “one law and order”. There are many laws in this country and above all a Constitution which was established to define government powers and individual liberties. “Order” is nowhere demanded by our Constitution.
We fear that the president will use the upheaval over the killing of George Floyd, combined with the pandemic and the growing economic depression as a opportunity to further snuff out our liberties, to divert attention to the gross inadequacies of his Administration, to end the possibility of meaningful protest and to use the U.S. military to enforce his wishes. This would amount to an unconstitutional seizure of power, one that must be resisted. We salute the tens of thousands of people in the streets demanding change and insist that policing be overhauled. We insist that social needs be satisfied by reducing funds going to police departments and the Pentagon.