Imperialism - in Ukraine Particular
On the attitude of Marxist Leninists to Russian Invasion
“In our time the legitimacy and justice of wars can be approached only from the standpoint of the proletariat and its liberation struggle…Marxists-Leninists adopt a concrete attitude to every war, depending on the class aims pursued by the belligerents. The champions of the pacifist ideology hold that the preaching of peace alone leads to an abolition of wars without struggle. Therefore, the pacifist ideology is not dangerous to the militarists, it can be used by the reactionary classes to blunt the vigilance of the masses." Fyodorov
Originally this study and article started before the Russian invasion and was focused on the definition of imperialism, and on the difference in attitudes toward each, on each given situation with examples from WW1 and WW2 and quotes from Lenin and Stalin. With the current development, rather than filling the article with data and history that has no significant value other than a strive to “convince” with “appearance” in determining Marxist Leninist stand on the issue, I decided to shorten it as much as possible and focus on the core of the issues to determine Marxist Leninist stand on this specific. Article is a final product of long “brain storming” and discussions among a group of Marxist Leninists from various parts of the world.
**
It is quite expected from a professional journalist trying to be hasty in publishing a commentary on a current event. That is his livelihood. However, even a good journalist does research on the subject, on its history and development before completing
his/her commentary. The less the time spent for the statement the more general
it becomes and the more “balanced” it becomes in a way that blurs the
difference between the guilty and innocent, just and unjust and tendency to be
“politically correct” in the commentary will be. In case of Marxist Leninist
writers, analyzers for ML newspapers, for statements etc., it falls into Lenin's assessment of “A Fool’s Haste Is No Speed.” Hastiness results in
being very general on the issue, not in specific. That brings about confusion
and promotes sloganization of theories disregarding the specific issue and
the realities of the issue. Marxist Leninists are not afraid of telling the
truth, contrary, it is their duty and responsibility to tell the truth as it is
without any tendency to be “balanced” and “politically correct” in
bourgeois meaning. Doing otherwise will be the worst kind of liberalism, not
Marxism Leninism.
Due to “hastiness” on one side and its inevitable results, and “prescriptive”
approach on the other, what is missing in typical articles and statements related to
“imperialism and Ukraine particular” is the Marxist Leninist principle for the
approach to any event based on concrete facts, not based on the sloganized
general principles of theories. What is correct in “general” may not be
correct “in particular. That’s why Lenin always cautioned us not to act
upon the principles of general theories but to keep one foot always on the
realities of that specific condition and situation.
Based on the general principles of theory most articles are correct but
almost all forget Lenin's warnings.
We should not analyze a situation based on learned by rote general
principles of theories, but we should analyze based on the concrete factual
situation with the interests of the working class and of their struggle in
mind. It is not dialectical but
mechanical to put all the imperialists in the same basket in every situation
and every condition. In one case the chief enemy, the aggressor could be little
imperialist Turkey, in another (actually in most cases) it could be
US-GB-Israel axis, in another it could be China, or Russia, so on so forth. Each
individual case should be studied objectively and determine the chief
enemy at that given case. Let's remember Lenin's approach to WW1 and warning
of not to do anything that will benefit the aggressor imperialist(s), and
Stalin's approach to WW2.
It is the responsibility of MLs to determine the warmongering aggressor,
the chief imperialist enemy at any given situation in any given country.
Stating the fact of “aggressiveness” does not relieve the other of being
imperialist, does not mean taking a side with the other “imperialism”. This
fear of being labeled as such has been forcing the ML analyzers and commentators
to be more general and to put all in
the same basket at any given specific. Repeating
sloganized general theories for every particular, is a betrayal to ML and to
dialectics of Marxism.
Analyzing a concrete situation just to be “politically correct”, or to
have a “balanced approach” is the worst kind of liberalism. Because any
analysis to find out what is going on and who are the main belligerents involved
have multiple points to proceed from but determination of our
attitude for a specific case in a specific time without any exception,
always have one fundamental point of proceeding: the interests of working
class and of their struggles.
I will not go into the “definition” of imperialism which is being quoted
so many times but as a “prescription” to all specific events without any
distinction. In this given case, no one is disputing the fact that Russia is an
imperialist country by definition. But does that explain everything and give us
the full picture and data in order to determine our stand for that specific
case with the interests of laboring people and of their struggle in mind, not
only in Ukraine particular but in world general? No it does not. Determining the “imperialists”
by definition literally means nothing without the determination of chief
enemy at that given situation for both in Ukraine particular and in
world general. As in most cases, in this specific case, Marxist Leninists
have to answer the questions of where the interest of the laboring people
lies in Ukraine, In Donbass specific, and in world general. To do that we
have to study the history of that given country, the history of belligerent imperialist
countries, existing political system, and its dominant class nature of the
country in which the imperialist countries playing war-game. We have to study
objectively to determine which imperialist block is forcing war upon other(s).
Although we do not determine the type of wars based on its possible outcome but
its class essence and aims in that specific, the “outcome” in this specific is
crucially important for the interests of laboring masses and of their
interests both in Ukraine particular world general. That is why it has to be studied
and considered in all analyses.
Let's study the concrete situation mainly in these aspects in particular;
1) Neo Nazi political power and Neo Nazi militias including in the army and
police in Ukraine, 2) Security and safety issues in Donetsk and Lugansk regions
against the Nazi attacks that have never stopped and will never stop until the
Nazi regime is destroyed. And connected
dialectically, the fundamental issues in general related to Ukraine; 1) Alignment of
Ukraine with NATO - and installation of US military means and personal on the
border of Russia, 2) Following Ukraine, alignment of other border countries
with NATO- and installation of US military means and personal on the borders of
Russia. Determination of stand of Marxist Leninists on the current issue,
depends on the analysis of these issues in connection with the escalation, de-escalation
of possibility of world war, the determination of where the interests of laboring
peoples and of their struggle lie, and based on that what the attitude should be. Not based on learned by rote general
principles of theories but based on the assessment of concrete situation with
the fundamental interests in mind.
Ukraine Particular
Almost all the assessments overlook the fact that Ukraine has a Nazi-loving political power with Nazis in all
institutions, Military, Police and has a Nazi militia. Her readiness to be a
vassal for US-NATO warmongering aggressive imperialism is another aspect with which
we deal later. That is why, the cry for "Peaceful Solution" in Ukraine
in the face of Russian invasion is a reflection of liberal utopia that a
peaceful solution can be reached with fascism especially with that of Nazi form-
with or without the Russian invasion. There
is none and cannot be one “peaceful solution” with any Nazi political power.
There is no example of that in history, there will not be one (at least for
the Marxist Leninist point of view).
Unfortunately, though, almost all the assessment of the situation in
Ukraine and abstract sloganization proceed from the assumption or deception
that "Ukraine was a peaceful country" before the Russian
imperialist invasion. The fact of the matter is that the war was going
on in Ukraine for years and especially for the last 8 years in a bloody,
ruthless form where the anti-fascists have been massacred, burned to death in
mass. It was a civil war between the Nazis and anti-Fascists which
changed its form after the anti-fascists established their autonomous regions.
That did not stop the Nazis shelling, killing, massacring the anti-fascists.
Trying to portray as if there was a "peaceful situation" in
Ukraine before the invasion and calling for "peaceful solution" is a
deception on one side, and self-deception on the other. It is an illusion of
liberals and those with liberal tendencies who believe there can be a
"peaceful solution" to Ukraine's problem, as they believe there can
be with fascism. Any "peaceful solution" can be spoken only after
the destruction of Nazi government and Nazi militia.
The interests of laboring masses and of their struggle is directly and vitally bound with the destruction of Nazi
regime in Ukraine.
Donbass
Similarly, the interests of laboring masses and of their struggle in
Donbass region is tied to the destruction of Nazi regime and annihilation of
its militia. Without that result, there cannot be a peaceful solution not only
in Donbass and in Ukraine, but in Europe and all the way to China and beyond.
Imperialism and war
War in Nazi-Ukraine backed by the warmongering aggressive imperialist US-NATO
and invasion attempt by Russian imperialism is not a typical war defined and
assessed by readymade prescriptions for all. As Lenin says it against the
"prescription" assessments; “Wars are a supremely varied,
diverse, complex thing. One cannot approach them with a general pattern",
there must be a concrete analysis of every war. (Lenin to Inessa Armand)
Fyodorov foresees and says, "the imperialists resort ever more
frequently to local wars, which are limited as regards territory and the
means of armed struggle applied. " And he recalls and says that Lenin’s
evaluation of “little” imperialist wars as "still relevant today.
This assessment of Lenin helps to understand their (little imperialist
wars') essence and the danger they constitute to social progress. A
little imperialist war may grow into a world war which is not limited as
regards its scale and the technical means of warfare involved. The “escalation”
strategy—the intensification of aggressive military actions in a local war—which
is an official doctrine of the US ruling circles, inevitably leads to an
extension of military conflicts and aggravates the danger of a world
war."
No Marxist Leninists can claim that a world war is in the interests of laboring masses. The situation before
the invasion and now should be studied with that interest in mind. What falls as
a responsibility to the Marxist Leninists is to study and figure out in
which case it would be playing a world war escalating factor or de-escalating
factor.
Fyodorov states eloquently that, "the interests of the
proletariat’s revolutionary movement and its struggle against capitalism
have become the main criteria of all international events, including wars.
In our time the legitimacy and justice of wars can be approached ONLY
from the standpoint of the proletariat and its liberation struggle."
US-NATO
It is no secret for Marxist Leninists that US-NATO is the main
driving force for warmongering and military aggression. That is why it
plays the “escalating” role for WW3, not only in one specific but all over the
world with more military personal and bases abroad than it has in US.
In the case of Ukraine, it is very clear and indisputable fact that Ukraine’s
alignment with NATO without any resistance from Russia not only would have
encouraged US-NATO, but other Russian borders countries to align with neo-Nazi
NATO. Let’s not forget, it is not
Russia who set up fascist state and
training Nazi militias in Mexico or Canada at the border of US. It is the US at the longest border of Russia
on West. It was not Russia in
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and is not in Africa or even in Asia forcing the
war upon the others. But it was the US-NATO. An alliance of NATO and the
presence of US-NATO military bases and personal on all the borders of Russia could
only play the role of Escalation, not de-escalation. At the current phase, one
cannot think and consider of Russia without considering China, for her safety
interests and military power is interlinked to that of Russia. And that means the involvement of China-
regardless of the provocations going on over Taiwan and South and East China
Sea. And that in return means the “escalation”.
It is undisputable fact that Presence of NATO in Ukraine will play an
escalating role for the world war. And thus, any attempt (regardless of
the imperialist intentions) to prevent that aligns with the interests of
laboring people and of their struggle in both- particular and in general.
On the face of German imperialist aggression, Izvestia on its March 18, 1938, article was calling other Imperialist
Powers to take practical measures aiming at stopping further aggression
and eliminating the increased danger of a new world butchery."
On the Attitude
For a Marxist, clarifying the nature of the
war is a necessary preliminary for deciding the question of his attitude
to it. But for such a clarification it is essential, first and foremost,
to establish the objective conditions and concrete circumstances of the war
in question. It is necessary to consider the war in the historical
environment in which it is taking place, only then can one determine
one’s attitude to it. Otherwise, the resulting interpretation will be not
materialist but eclectic.
Depending on the historical circumstances, the
relationship of classes, etc., the attitude to war must be different at
different times. (Lenin, Lecture on the Proletariat, and the War”)
Being in the defensive position in the competition and conflict between
the imperialists, undeniable fact is that Russia did not and cannot have any
prior intention for a war or escalating a war. The war has been “forced
upon” Russian imperialists through war mongering, militarily aggressive
imperialist US-NATO.
Here comes Lenin’s little wars assessment again, which states that
little wars can easily open the door for larger wars. In this type of
wars “quality” of the warring factions -small or large- as far as
progressive or reactionary can easily change depending on the “side”
each group takes in changing conditions. (Such as in Syrian example). Lenin was clear on the attitude towards
militarily aggressive imperialist(s) – “Socialist never do anything that will
benefit the aggressive imperialists- or facilitate their aggressiveness.”, so was Stalin during the 2nd WW. And on top Stalin’s answer to Indian CP was
very clear in ML attitude in a given situation- analyze the existing
condition, determine the chief enemy.
The current chief enemy of the people of the world is neo-Nazi
US-GB-Israel imperialist block. Its’ declining economically and politically is increasing
its military aggressiveness and escalating a world war with the Russian-Chinese
imperialist block. With the dialectic connection and critique of other
imperialist powers in the face of German aggressive imperialism let's look at
the assessments.
In his report to the Eighteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union in March 1939, J. V. Stalin, analyzing the reasons for the growth
of Hitlerite aggression, said:
"The chief reason is that the majority of
the non-aggressive countries, particularly England and France, have
rejected the policy of collective security, the policy of collective resistance
to the aggressors, and have taken up a position of non-intervention, a position
of neutrality.” J. V. Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central Committee to
the Eighteenth Congress of the CPSU (B).
On the face of this aggression and provocation that feeds and
strengthens a Nazi system in particular
and Neo-Nazi US-NATO block in general, for Russia to be “neutral” was impossible for its own interests. Stalin, referring to
the British and French imperialists was saying;
"The policy of non-intervention means
conniving at aggression, giving free rein to war, and consequently transforming
the war into world war. The policy of non-intervention reveals an eagerness, a
desire, not to hinder the aggressors in their nefarious work.” Stalin,
Eighteenth Congress of the CPSU (B), Stenographic Report, 1939
Let's not forget that Germany had 65 million population with military
restrictions on them. I am not sure at the moment, but I believe it was limited
to around 100 thousand military personnel and ban on the military industry. Yet with Nazis climbing the power restrictions
were removed and with the help of other imperialist countries finance capital it
was turned into a military might against the Soviet Russia with the aim of destroying
it. Only when they witnessed that the Soviets were capable of beating Germany, thus,
to stop Soviets they have participated in the anti-fascist alliance. Their imperialist
nature and aims have not changed, but the economic, political, and social
factors played the determining role in that given war having a “progressive”
political content. At the same time, they have proven their imperialist nature
by preventing completely eradicating fascism and impeded the development of
the liberation movement of the peoples in the occupied small countries.
In this connection let's remember Lenin's assessment of wars and think
over it, based on which Fyodor states:
"It is important to bear in mind that progressive
wars waged by the pre-monopoly bourgeoisie have always exhibited also
aggressive unjust tendencies; sometimes these became so important that they
changed the social character of the war, transformed it from a war of
liberation into an aggressive war. Even today the capitalist countries
may in definite conditions conduct progressive wars, but the imperialist
tendencies of bourgeois policies always assert themselves.
Relying on the “definition” of imperialism and claiming that they are
all the same with the same expected results in each and every situation and
condition is a betrayal to the soul of Marxism Leninism and to its
dialectics. It is quite easy to base memorized "prescriptions"
for the assessments without offering any alternatives and throwing abstract
slogans. However, that cannot help the interests of laboring masses and of
their struggle. One always has to study and determine where the interests of
laboring people lie.
For Marxist Leninists, every assessment and stand should have the interests
of laboring masses and of their struggle in mind and should derive from
those interests. Everything else,
all the memorized slogans are secondary and dialectically connected to that.
Most assessments and stands available are based on abstract slogans
and a general stand against imperialism. Looks like none has done a
study to determine what the key issues in Ukraine particular and in world
general. It is a habit of "left child disease" either isolating
the issues in the particular from the general or isolating the general from the
given particular. That is why none of them can see -even don't strive to see-
and offer a solution other than throwing memorized abstract slogans.
As Lenin puts it "The itch is a painful disease. And when people
are seized by the itch of revolutionary phrase-making the mere sight of this
disease causes intolerable suffering."
It is important to quote Fyodorov here for the resemblance of “aggressor”
accusations of today;
The British and French ruling circles, which went on abusing the USSR and calling
it an aggressor for creating an "Eastern" front, evidently did
not realize that the appearance of an "Eastern" front signified a
radical turn in the development of the war – a turn against Hitlerite
tyranny, a turn in favor of a victory for democracy.
Was the United States Government right when it landed its troops
at Casablanca in spite of the protests of the Moroccans and of direct
military counteraction on the part of the Petain Government of France whose
authority extended to Morocco? Unquestionably it was right.
The question is not if Russia is imperialist or not. The question is if
the action is and outcome will be for the
interests of Ukrainian, Donbass region laboring masses and of their struggle or
not.
On a comparable situation, Russia-Georgia war, Garbis Altinoglu had
summarized the attitude of Marxist Leninist as following;
"The revolutionary vanguard of the
working class and consistent democrats and internationalists cannot in
principle take sides in this inter-imperialist conflict for spheres of
influence, raw materials, markets and military-political supremacy. They know
that war is inherent in capitalism and imperialism, and that real and
lasting peace can only be achieved by the world-wide victory of proletarian
revolutions and the overthrow of the capitalist-imperialist system.
And they know that the crisis in the
Caucasus can only be resolved with the progress and victory of a struggle
to be waged under the leadership of the revolutionary parties of the working
class and under the banner of proletarian internationalism.
On the other hand, they
(Marxist Leninists) say that the USA and NATO, or to put it more clearly,
the neo-fascist axis of the USA-Israel-Britain constitute the most
aggressive bloc and that this bloc, which is the main enemy of the
working class and peoples of the world, is the main instigator and executive
of the wars of aggression. And therefore, they (Marxist Leninists) can
never ignore the fact that it is the main task of the working class and the
peoples to weaken, isolate and neutralize this axis.
Despite the
reactionary and imperialist nature of their regimes, Russia and China
are already on the defensive, and their attempts and counterattacks
against the efforts of the US-NATO axis to encircle, regress and isolate
them serve to preserve the current peace in today's tactical phase
and makes the outbreak of a new world war - in which nuclear weapons
will also be used- difficult.
Therefore,
the revolutionary vanguard of the working class and consistent democrats and
internationalists, while condemning their imperialist and expansionist
policies, they welcome Russia's repelling of the attack by the
US-Israel-Georgia axis."
The war in Ukraine is nothing but an inevitable result of US-NATO military
aggression which was consciously forced upon Russia. Considering the
Ukraine’s Nazi structure, Nazi militia and aggressive policy toward Donetsk
and Belorussia and desire to be the extension of US-NATO military on the border
of Russia which escalates the possibility of world war; the latent functions
of Russian invasion of Ukraine is
welcomed by Marxist Leninists.
Another extreme example of “political progressive content”
“Wars,” says Lenin, “are a supremely varied, diverse, complex thing.
One cannot approach them with a general pattern."
Fyodor explains that “The political content of war determines the
historical role it plays in the life of society. Depending on their
political content, wars can have a progressive or reactionary influence
on the development of society. It is this division that makes Lenin’s
principle of the political content of war so valuable in theoretical and
practical respects.
The political content of wars and their division into just and unjust
ones are organically interlinked. All moral appraisals of historical phenomena
in antagonistic societies have a class-political sense. That is why the
moral-political characteristic of a war expresses its class nature. The
characteristic is not arbitrary, it reflects the objective role each war plays
in concrete historical conditions. Just wars are distinguished from unjust
ones by the progressive or reactionary, liberating or aggressive aims of the
belligerents.”
We all know that the war in Syria was the results of US-NATO strategy in
where they have unleashed ISIS – organized, fed, led, militarized, and trained
by them- to create chaos and opened the door for them to invade and annex
the oil rich regions. And we all know that its support to SDF is a part
of its long-term strategy in the region. The question is could the Rojava Revolution
against ISIS be possible without the support of US-NATO. We all know the answer to
be “NO”. Is the Rojava revolution progressive? Yes. I do not think
any Marxist Leninist could answer to that question negative – despite the
fact that followingly its character has changed as explained the possibility of change in
Lenin’s “little imperialist wars.”
No Marxist Leninist would have gone against this support, even though
they know it has insidious, aggressive aims. “Political progressive content”
of the warmongering, militarily aggressive imperialist war brought about
Rojava. Marxist Leninists welcomed Rojava without prettifying,
minimizing the danger US-NATO militarily aggressor holds for the laboring people of the region in particular, and of world
in general.
It is not surprising, due to their Bundist ideology for those who welcomes
Rojava and call the US-NATO forces “Coalition partners”, yet comparable situation in Donbass, they cry “down with Russian imperialism and its invasion. Although
this is not our subject it is important to show that most assessments and
stands are either subjective or deriving from subjective approach -not objective
and Marxist Leninist.
Let's briefly touch on other related subjects
Peaceful Solution
The cry for "Peaceful Solution" is
a reflection of liberal utopia that a peaceful solution can be reached
with fascism especially with that of Nazi form.
Almost all the assessment of the situation in Ukraine and abstract
sloganization proceed from the assumption or deception that
"Ukraine was a peaceful country" before the Russian imperialist
invasion. The fact of the matter is that the war was going on in Ukraine for
years and especially for the last 8 years in a bloody, ruthless form where
the communists and anti-fascists have
been massacred, burned to death in mass. It was a civil war between the
Nazis and anti-Fascists which changed its form after the anti-fascists
established their autonomous regions. That did not stop the Nazis shelling,
killing, massacring the communists and anti-fascists.
Trying to portray as if there was a "peaceful situation" in
Ukraine before the invasion and calling for "peaceful solution" is a
deception on one side, and self-deception on the other. It is an illusion of
liberals and those with liberal tendencies who believe there can be a
"peaceful solution" to Ukraine's problem, as they believe there can
be with fascism. Any "peaceful solution" can be spoken only after the
destruction of Nazi government and Nazi militia.
Anti-War – Anti Russia demonstrations
Most demonstrations do look like a revival of cold-war era propaganda
tactics where the fascists and fascist supporters were labelling communists and anti-fascists, as fascists. These well-organized demonstrations with perfectly written banners
and slogans, obviously looks that these demonstrations are organized and
supported by the ruling classes of those given countries.
As far as the statements and demonstrations are concerned;
For American and Great Britain Marxist Leninists, focusing on the
"Russian Invasion" and "Russian imperialism" and condemning
Russia and giving only "lip-service" to the condemnation of US-GB
imperialism, is the indication of chauvinism. Demonstrations and
statements as such is not considered progressive but reactionary for it
conceals the chief enemies of the people of the world, and their warmongering,
provocative, Nazi supporter actions in Ukraine.
For Russian Marxist Leninists, focusing on US-GB- Israel axis in this specific case, disregarding
Russian Imperialism will be considered chauvinistic, and thus demonstrations as
such will be reactionary not progressive. So far Russian communists and
anti-fascists mostly displayed the correct attitude.
For European countries
who are practically an extension of US-NATO, Marxist Leninists would focus on
their chief enemy NATO and demand for the withdrawal from NATO and dissolution
of NATO. Any demonstration focusing on Russia but excluding NATO would be
reactionary not progressive.
Only for the Marxist Leninists of countries with no direct
association to both sides may take upon the subject evenly. But never forgetting
to stress the chief enemy of the people of the world and (at least currently)
the warmongering, war escalating US-NATO imperialism. Nothing is stagnant,
there may be, or will be a time when the others replace the current. But we act
on and determine the attitude based on the conditions and situation now.
Demonstrations cannot be considered "progressive" just
because they are against war- ML are not against wars but against certain
types of war- or they are not considered progressive just because they are
calling for "peace" - peace with whom? with NATO, with Nazi
political power and Nazi militias in Ukraine? Same people were calling for
"peace" with ISIS in Syria, and some still do.
Conclusion
Nothing in Marxism Leninism except the fundamental principles is black
and white. Memorizing the definition of “imperialism”, and “imperialist war”
and applying that to each and every situation is the indication of “itch”
disease. For those who can apply the dialectic of Marxism, Lenin’s words, in A
Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism tells a lot on the issue of" black or white"; “Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will
forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and
that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism.”
As Fyodor puts it, “the imperialists resort ever more frequently to
local wars, which are limited as regards territory and the means of armed
struggle applied. By waging such wars, they attempt to strengthen their
position in different parts of the world and to weaken the working
people’s revolutionary-liberation movement.
Looking at the recent history, if not all most “local wars” have been
instigated and carried out by US-NATO and without any significant
resistance. They have ruined the infrastructure of those countries, forced
brain-migration, and sent them economically and socially to Middle Ages- in the
case of Libya – a country which was the most developed in economy and social
welfare in the continent of Africa - to the slavery age. Other than its border
countries, Syria was the first that Russia (and indirectly China) came
to the scene to put a break on US-NATO free ride. This intervention was in no
way for democracy or liberation but to prevent US-NATO military expansionism -through
war, invasion, annexation, and plunder - to become a real threat to existence of both Russia and China. Any
serious shift in the balance of power could not only endanger the
existence of the weak one, but
increases the possibility of nuclear war, so endangers the lives of
millions of people. Although US imperialism is declining in the world arena,
its economic and military power is intact, and thus aggressive. Russia and China imperialist block is
currently in defensive position. Their defensive position inevitably and
latently plays the role of balancing against the world war, and against
the aggression of US-NATO block.
The case of Ukraine is
much closer to the Russian imperialists due to Russian population which almost
exceeds to % 25 of the Ukrainian population and years of oppression and
massacre of that population by the Nazi government and militias. This
fact and the fact that the war has been “forced upon” them makes Russia’s
invasion attempt “legitimate” and “justified” even in bourgeois sense of
the words. However, that does not mean that Russia (and China) was not
expecting that US will be "forcing war upon" her in Ukraine. They
probably were aware and are aware this kind of provocations and aggression will
be continuing in various parts of the world close to the -land and
sea- borders of Russia and China.
Reiterating, rephrasing, and applying the assessment of Comrade Garbis; “Marxist
Leninists say that the neo-fascist
axis of the USA-Israel-Britain constitute the most aggressive bloc and that
this bloc, which is the main enemy of the working class and peoples of the
world, is the main instigator and executive of the wars of aggression.
And therefore, Marxist Leninists can never ignore the fact that it is
the main task of the working class and the peoples to weaken, isolate and
neutralize this axis.
Despite the reactionary
and imperialist nature of their regimes, Russia and China are already on
the defensive, and their attempts and counterattacks against the efforts
of the US-NATO axis to encircle, regress and isolate them serve to preserve
the current peace in today's tactical phase and makes the outbreak of a
new world war - in which nuclear weapons will also be used- difficult.
Therefore, the revolutionary vanguard of the working class and
consistent democrats and internationalists, while condemning their
imperialist and expansionist policies, they welcome Russia's repelling of the
attacks and preventing the preparations of further attacks by the US-NATO axis
in the region."
Marxist Leninists of Europe where the memories of the devastation of 2nd
WW still reigns, should focus on mobilizing the people against NATO in their
countries and force their governments to remove the NATO bases and US soldiers from these
countries. Because US is trying to extend NATO to the countries on the
border of Russia which in turn will be “forcing upon” more wars that
may end up with devastation of European people again.
Erdogan A
With the contribution of MLG
February-March 2022
Quotes from, "Marxism-Leninism on War and Army ", Fyodorov
Next article
Where rote is repeated, finds itself in the lap of Trotskyism - the approach to the war in Ukraine.
https://neodemocracy.blogspot.com/2022/03/where-rote-is-repeated-finds-itself-in.html
Note on Ukraine – Update based on ongoing discussions
Parallelism with Nazi Germany era
It was inevitable that there would be varying point of view and stands for the Ukraine events. There will always be varying points of view and stands on a given event. This is Marxism Leninism, and there will be differences in analysis based on the application of Marxist Dialectics, and more, disregarding the application of Marxist Dialectics.
As long as the assessments are sincere and thorough and based on Marxist Leninist theories and application of dialectics of Marxism, each will have some truth in it, but that will not make all of them correct. In most cases, one or combination of two will be correct in its analysis and determination of the stand.
It is expected that the opportunists will consider the dominant point of view of masses which is heavily influenced by the western media propaganda and commentaries in their assessment and determination of stand. For their opportunist reasons, they will have to consider the views and approaches of NGOs and civil organizations such as "Peace" and "anti-War".
Genuine Marxist Leninist analyzers, however, do not pay attention to any of those subjective views and stands. They are not out to please one or the other with the purpose of increasing their followers and of their popularity. They study the issue at hand with one interest in mind only: the interests of laboring masses and of their struggle in that given particular and in world general.
For that reason, they have to be objective. They have to study the concrete condition and situation in particular and in general, past, and recent history, the character of belligerent countries involved and determine what is at stake as far as the interests of laboring masses and of their struggle is concerned
- not only in that given particular but in world general.
For Marxist Leninists the interests of particular are always subordinated to the interests of general.
That means in some cases what is beneficial for the particular, may contradict what is beneficial for the people of the "world in general." In such cases, the "interests in general" become the priority for Marxist Leninists.
During a month or so brainstorming and discussion the initial views were varied as it is varied on world scale now. Fundamental conclusions were: 1) The real -concealed- aggressor in this conflict in particular is US-Western imperialism (in Lenin's definition) for it "forced the war upon" Russia. 2) The chief enemy in this conflict in world general is warmongering aggressor US-NATO
Disagreement to a degree was on the invasion attempt itself.
Question was "is having a Neo-Nazi government and military-civil Nazi militia in any country an excuse for military intervention?"
Answers were "this is totally a hypothetical question and cannot be answered to as "yes" or "no" without knowing the existing conditions and situation, and without knowing where the interests of laboring people lie". In these given conditions and situation, question is not "any country". It is a neighboring country with an oppressed, massacred minority that, at the same time, happens to be the people of intervening country.
The only different opinion from the predominant opinions on the issue was the "parallelism" of the developments with that of Nazi Germany era prior and during Nazi Germany.
Some of us, including me, see the current condition and situation in the world- with neo-Nazi character of US-NATO warmongering, racist, militarily provocative, and aggressive policy - a "parallelism" with the Nazi era.
We do make a distinction in military sense, between aggressive and non-aggressive imperialist countries based on any given situation. We do not put all in the same basket in each and every situation and condition. We do consider imperialism of Russia-and China as in their tactical era of defensive position (only in military sense). We consider the US-NATO as the militarily aggressive imperialists. And thus, in current concrete situation and conditions we do welcome the military interference of Russian imperialism in Ukraine as an imperialist action which has, as Bolsheviks defined, "progressive political content" in it - not only in Ukraine particular against the Neo-Nazis, but in world general against the warmongering aggressive US-NATO imperialism - with possibility of delaying, de-escalating world-war.
This action of Russia (although it is never the objective of Russian imperialism) which is totally in line with the interests of laboring masses and of their struggles both in particular and in general.
March 4, 2022
.jpg)
No comments