On the statement of “In Defence of Communism”; The stance of the communists towards the imperialist war in Ukraine
"In Defense of Communism" concludes the war as an imperialist war. This is correct only if it means a war between two or more great powers. So many other statements call it “imperialist war” but then in the statement they switch to a war between Ukraine and Russia.
"The present war " says Lenin, " is an imperialist one, and that is its basic feature. An imperialist war is quite a different matter. Socialists who fail to realize that the present war is imperialist, who fail to take a historical view of it, will understand nothing about the war." (Lenin, Lecture On “The Proletariat And The War" )
Again, he says; " The present war—precisely because it is an imperialist war insofar as both groups of belligerent “great” powers .." (Lenin, The 2nd International Socialist Conference at Kienthal)If it is a war between Ukraine and Russia,
it should be assessed as an “anti-imperialist war “. It would
be an “imperialist war” on the side of Russia and an “anti-imperialist war “on
the side of Ukraine. That requires the communist to be supporting the Ukrainian
government.
A war against imperialist nations is a
genuine national war. .. "Defense of the fatherland" in a war waged
by an oppressed nation against a foreign oppressor is not a deception.
Socialists are not opposed to "defense of the fatherland" in such a
war. " (Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism,)
For those who claim the war to be an
anti-imperialist war, and for those mixing it, it is imperative to note Lenin;
In the political sphere, the
imperialist war has demonstrated that from the imperialists’
standpoint it is sometimes much more advantageous to have as war ally a
politically independent but financially dependent small nation. It
is quite possible, therefore, that parallel with its policy of strangling small
nations, imperialism will in individual cases follow a policy of
“voluntary” alliance. Lenin, Theses for an Appeal to the
International Socialist Committee and All Socialist Parties
“Small countries too cannot,
in imperialist wars, which are most typical of the current
imperialist epoch, defend their fatherland.” Lenin To: G.
Y. Zinoviev
And Stalin in reference to finding a
bordering country;
"History shows that
when any state intends to make war against another state, even not
adjacent, it begins to seek for frontiers across which it can reach the
frontiers of the state it wants to attack, Usually, the aggressive
state finds such frontiers.” Stalin, Interview with Roy Howard
(1936).
In all statements the type of war
needs to be clearly stated without leaving any room for misunderstanding. In most cases it is not clear what type they really mean the war is.
What comrade Nikos Mottas confuses the
minds is in relation to the concept of aggressive and non-aggressive
imperialist. In its economic sense and in “peace” time general, communists do not make a distinction between any imperialist countries for it
is inherent to imperialism regardless of how small or how large it is. However,
in war times, communists do not apply the general principles of theories to each
and every war. The question of militarily aggressive policies and practices may
come to the forefront. In other words, aggressiveness is related to
militarization, militarily aggressiveness and warmongering policy of any given
imperialist at any given time. In any given war time, assessments are
made with the interests of the working class and of their struggle in
mind – not based on the principles of general theories.
In this sense, comrade Nikos Mottas statement “The perception of “supporting the least aggressive imperialist” is totally anti-Leninist and against the popular interests” is wrong because it assumes and makes a general rule that in each situation and condition it is “against the popular interests.” It is wrong for it is against the dialectics of Marxism and denies the necessity of the process of the assessment of each concrete situation to determine a stand that is for the interests of the working class and her struggle.
In reality, that statement itself is anti-Leninist. Here is what Lenin said;
"For Marxist, Clarifying the
nature of war is a necessary preliminary for deciding the question
of its attitude towards war. But for such an explanation, first of
all, the objective and concreteness of the war in question is necessary."
But for such a clarification, first and foremost to establish the
objective conditions and concrete circumstances of the war in question.
It is necessary to determine the conditions of the war. It is necessary to
think about the war in the historical environment in which it is taking place, only
then can one determine one's attitude towards it. Otherwise, the
resulting interpretation will be eclectic rather than materialistic.
Depending on historical
conditions,
the relationship of classes and similar data, the attitude towards war
must be different at different times. " Lenin, Lecture on
the Proletariat, and War
Based on Leninist theory, Stalin was
making this assessment in which he was making a distinction between the
imperialists in that given war time;
“history shows that aggressor
nations, the nations which attack, are usually better prepared for a new
war than peace-loving nations which, having no interest in a new war, are
usually behindhand with their preparations for it.... when Japan, as
the aggressor nation, proved to be better prepared for war than Great
Britain and the United States of America, which pursued a policy of peace....
The reason here is not personal qualities but the fact that aggressor
nations, interested in a new war " Stalin, the question
of Peace and Security
Stalin was clearly making the distinction between
imperialists those who are interested in new war, and those who do not.
As a separate war where the memorized slogans and universalized statements
cannot be applied, Stalin says;
It is a distinguishing
feature of the new imperialist war that it has not yet become
universal, a world war. The war is being waged by aggressor states,
who in every way infringe upon the interests of the non-aggressive states,
primarily England, France, and the U.S.A., while the latter draw back and
retreat, making concession after concession to the aggressors. Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central Committee to
the Eighteenth Congress of the CPSU(B.)
Stalin, in his report was complaining about
the fact that non-aggressive imperialist is not interfering, not attempting to
resist to the aggressor imperialists.
We are witnessing an
open redivision of the world and spheres of influence at the expense of
the non-aggressive states, without the least attempt at resistance, and even
with a certain amount of connivance, on the part of the latter. How is it that
the non-aggressive countries, which possess such vast
opportunities, have so easily, and without any resistance,
abandoned their positions and their obligations to please the
aggressors?” Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central Committee to
the Eighteenth Congress of the CPSU(B.)
And Stalin was criticizing the
non-intervention policy of non-aggressive imperialists;
Formally speaking, the
policy of non-intervention might be defined as follows:
"Let each country
defend itself from the aggressors as it likes and as best it can. That
is not our affair. We shall trade both with the aggressors and with their
victims."
But actually speaking, the
policy of non-intervention means conniving at aggression, giving
free rein to war, and, consequently, transforming the war into a world war. The
policy of non-intervention reveals an eagerness, a desire, not to
hinder the aggressors in their nefarious work." Stalin,
Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the
CPSU(B.)
As we see, Marxist Leninist Stalin was not
saying “The perception of “supporting the least aggressive imperialist”
is totally anti-Leninist and against the popular interests”, he proceeded
form the interests of working class and of their struggles and concluded that
non-aggressive imperialist countries should fight against the aggressive ones
and not only supported them but welcomed their successes against the aggressive
imperialists.
"As for the first
part of Mr. President's speech on the war in the Pacific Region, we can
say: We Russians welcome the achievements that Anglo-American forces
have achieved and are gaining in the Pacific. " Stalin, The Tehran
Conference 1943
Stalin was not under the illusion that non-aggressive
imperialists were fighting for the interests of working class, he was well
aware of the fact that they were fighting for their own imperialist interests.
He did not characterize them as “anti-imperialist, or anti-fascist” for
he was aware that Germany was a product of their finance capital support.
These quotes above debunk Comrade Nikos
above mentioned universalized “formula” as well as his following “formula”,
because Marxism Leninism doesn’t work with “formulas “, but requires concrete
assessments each time, each changing conditions with the interests of
working class in mind;
The fundamental conclusion is this: The
working class, the people, have nothing to gain from the victory
of one or the other imperialist power. Nikos M.
Comrade Nikos comment “Unfortunately, a
number of Communist Parties have failed to draw proper conclusions from the
inter-imperialist crisis in Ukraine. A few of them went so far as to refer to
the Russian invasion as a legal military action” is debatable. In its
bourgeois context, yes, it is “legal”, meaning that it is “justified.” If
all the US invasions of countries thousands of miles away from its border are
justified, then the Russian invasion is justified too. However, from the
Marxist Leninist point of view, once it is done, the issue is not “if
it is justified or not” (determination of war type already covers that); it is
the evaluation of the situation and most likely results in that given
particular and in general stemming from the interests of laboring
people and of their struggle. What will or may be the positive and negative
effects- concrete responses not vague phrases, abstract
slogans.
Same “universalized”, “single” approach is
applied to the question of “invasion” in almost all the statements; “If it is
invasion, it is bad and not in the interests of popular masses.” Whether an
invasion is justified or not cannot be determined by memorized slogans but with
the assessment of concrete situation and always with the interests of working
class and of their struggle in mind.
There were no neo-Nazi governments,
neo-Nazi militias, neo-Nazi police who were waging war against the communists and
anti-fascists for eight years in Egypt or in Morocco, but there is in Ukraine.
Stalin and the Bolsheviks did not object to
the British occupation of Egypt's coastal and canal region;
"Was the British
Government right in deploying its troops in Egypt during the war,
despite the protests of the Egyptians and even the resistance of some elements
in Egypt? It was undoubtedly right... Only the enemies of democracy or the
insane could argue that the British Government's action in this
situation constituted aggression. " Soviet Information Bureau,
Falsificators of History, 1948
Stalin and the Bolsheviks did not oppose the
US invasion of Morocco. The Bolsheviks evaluated this invasion as
"correct", aiming to establish a front in preventing the
expansion of aggressive imperialist Germany.
Was the US right when it
landed its troops in Casablanca, despite Moroccan protests and the direct
military opposition of the French Petain Government, whose mandate extended to
Morocco? Undoubtedly it was right. This was a crucial means of
establishing a base in the immediate vicinity of Western Europe to
counter German aggression, creating an opportunity for victory over
Hitler's troops and thus liberating France from Hitler's colonial oppression.
Only enemies of democracy or insane people could view these actions of
American troops as aggression." Soviet Information bureau, Falsificators
of History, 1948
Lenin was warning us against such practice of
applying general principles and rules as prescription for the
determination of the tactics and stands to be taken. “Of course, in politics,
in which sometimes extremely complicated relationships have to be dealt with,
but “it would be absurd to concoct a recipe, or general rule... that
would serve in all cases. One must have the brains to analyze
the situation in each separate case.” Lenin, Left-wing Communism
In Ukraine case too, Marxism requires
a concrete assessment of this separate war. The approach to each war
cannot be based on the generalization of “era” and prescriptive
application of to all. “To hold such a view “says Lenin, “is
to reduce the whole thing to an absurdity and apply a ridiculous stereotype in
place of a concrete analysis of each separate war. Lenin, A
Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism
Comrade Nikos, like most others gives the
impression, or insinuation that if Russia did not invade Ukraine, the conflict
between the superpowers- US-NATO and Russia-China- would not be escalating.
He
states:
The so-called “communist” forces which,
openly or covertly, call the working class to side with Russia's aspirations,
use the groundless argument that a possible Russian victory in Ukraine leads to
a “defeat” (or “retreat”) of NATO, Euro-Atlanticism, etc. Where does this
conclusion come from? Even if the eastern expansion of NATO stops, the Russian
invasion has already caused a tendency of mobilization in the Euro-Atlantic
camp, an increase of military expenditures and the rearmament of Germany.
This argument is as subjective and
groundless as the arguments he criticized. Regardless of the invasion, the
developments in Asia, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe were already indicating
the escalation of conflict. How will the invasion effect, cannot be
assessed objectively without seeing the developments in Ukraine and, if sooner,
conclusion of invasion. In addition, we will have to see the developments and
its’ effects in regard to Taiwan- China, and Japan-Russia
issues. Without concrete data on hand, making a negative or positive
statement could only be subjective.
In most generally correct
statements, there are no concrete conclusions offered, neither is
any evaluation specified as far as the interests of laboring masses is
concerned. For some reason – majority with the fear of appearing to be
supporting one or the other imperialist- conclusions are vague with abstract
phrases.
Erdogan A
March 2022
Article of Nikos Mottas
Related
First article
Imperialism - in Ukraine Particular
Second Article
Where rote is repeated, finds itself in the lap of Trotskyism - the approach to the war in Ukraine.
Conclusion
Question of Ukraine - Summary of the conclusions of assessment
Critique
Open response to some of the main points of an article by Erdogan A with MLG
Third Article
Response to MLC- On the assessment and conclusions regarding Ukraine question
Separate addition
Attitude to wars - Marx & Engels 1850, Lenin 1914, Stalin 1933
.jpg)
No comments