Why’d Russia Assemble The Sovintern?
If Russia didn’t foster cooperation among international leftist forces that are acceptable to it, then it would cede influence over the left as a whole to the US, which would then exploit this ideology as a force for mobilizing large swaths of the global public against Russia.
Russia launched the “Soviet International” (Sovintern) in late April. The event was attended by representatives of more than 100 parties representing over 70 countries according to Sputnik’s report. Putin also sent a message that was read off at the launch. Some perceive the Sovintern as a competitor to the “Socialist International”, which increasingly prioritizes identity politics and is seen by some leftist critics as an imperialist tool against Russia, due to it being against identity politics and being pro-Russian.
This observation segues into the Sovintern’s role as the spiritual successor of the “Communist International” (Comintern). Unlike back then, when Moscow controlled the Comintern’s members, the Sovintern’s retain their independence. The goal this time around therefore appears to be fostering cooperation among international leftist forces that are acceptable to Russia, which can at least prevent the left as a whole from being turned against Russia, instead of employing such them for regime change.
After all, the odds of the American Communist Party coming to power in the US are too low to seriously discuss for instance, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t become a force to be reckoned with in some areas. Some of their members might be voted into local, state, or even federal office, but they’re unlikely to ever influence the US’ foreign and military policies, let alone win the presidency. From Russia’s perspective, all that seems to matter is that they and others defend it from leftist critics, that’s all.
If Russia didn’t foster cooperation among international leftist forces that are acceptable to it, then it would cede influence over the left as a whole to the US, which would then exploit this ideology as a force for mobilizing large swaths of the global public against Russia. Simply put, the Sovintern’s creation is pragmatic, not ideological. After all, Russia also fosters cooperation among what can be called right-wing forces, such as the “International League of Anti-Globalist Paladins” that it launched last year.
Critics therefore claim that those from the left and right that participate in Russian-organized initiatives are working against their own interests due to the Kremlin fostering cooperation among their ideological rivals at the same time. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, narratives like the aforesaid are clearly meant to dissuade folks on both sides from participating in such events, which in turn tacitly supports anti-Russian forces on their respective side of the spectrum by weakening opposition to them.
There are many cultural and political Russophiles among both camps who feel strongly enough about their views to not want to associate with otherwise like-minded folks who are ethnic or political Russophobes. Being around those on their side who also like Russia is so important to them that they don’t mind participating in Russian-organized initiatives even though Russia also organizes such initiatives among their ideological rivals. It’s their choice, it makes sense, and it helps Russian interests.
Circling back to the Sovintern, while the Socialist International views its members as Kremlin puppets, they’re actually fully independent whereas the same can’t be said about the Socialist International’s. The only real prerequisite for joining this new leftist movement is not supporting anti-Russian policies, unlike the Socialist International, which pressures members to support identity politics and anti-Russian policies among other demands. It’ll therefore be interesting to see how their competition develops.
We should start by redefining what 'the left' means. It has never had the same meaning across different eras and countries. Take the example of France, the country that invented this concept of left and right in politics. In 1873, French parliamentarians voted by a single vote for the advent of a republic, the Third (which lasted until 1940). The great divide at the time in the country was between the Republicans on one hand, more or less social, more or less radical, and the Monarchists on the other, more or less conservative and legitimist, or more or less Bonapartist, or more or less liberal and Orléanist. Now, the Republicans sat on the left of the Assembly and the Monarchists on the right.
The vast majority of Republicans were bourgeois, very anti‑social (the German Empire was far more social), and the socialists were embryonic. The Republicans had nothing — absolutely nothing — to unite them, so they invented a fanatical anti‑Catholicism as an ideology. So between 1870 and 1920, in France, being left‑wing meant being anti‑monarchist and anti‑clerical.
Then the socialists took off prodigiously, eventually splitting between Bolshevik‑style communists and socialists of the human‑face capitalism kind. But there, in the 1920s, France saw the birth of the divide that would last a century. Being left‑wing meant favoring or balancing labor against capital, and preferring justice over order. The right liked the freedom of the free fox in the free henhouse, and preferred order over justice.
Mitterrand, Blair, Schröder, Zapatero having totally betrayed their voters and subjected them to the worst dictates of the savage neoliberalism of Friedman and Hayek, just as to the bloodiest, most submissive Americanist neoconservatism of Wolfowitz, Kagan, and other basement crazies, and then Tsipras in Greece and Podemos in Spain having totally betrayed their own, abolishing all hope in the radical left, it would be appropriate to redefine what it means to be left‑wing. For more than ten years now, I have asked this question dozens of times to people who defined themselves as left‑wing — politicians, intellectuals — forbidding them from using any stupid commonplaces like 'it means being for peace' or 'for friendship among peoples.' Not a single one, absolutely none, has been able to answer me.
Today, it seems that the alpha and omega of the left is to allow the rich, especially LGBTs, to buy children from poor women, to allow men dressed as women to enter girls' bathrooms and locker rooms, to establish criminal impunity, to abolish borders and thus the rights and privileges of citizenship, and in France, to allow Muslims, in the name of secularism, everything that it forbids Catholics in the name of the same secularism. One part of the left wants to eradicate Russia, and the other wants to eradicate Israel; both can no longer stand the native French person who lives by their work.
SIMPLE, Russiam is likeable in many ways. It is hard to not like Russia. & Russians. Russia is PEACEFUL. Other countries are war like. People LOVE peace and hate war. Russians are NICE.