Accept the Challenge to Fight, or Surrender without a fight?

Valevskaya Z

May 9, 2021

The reason for authoring this article was a clash of views regarding the Ukrainian conflict with a group of left-wing comrades who persistently defend the position of denying the driving forces that launched it. Also, this group of propagandists actively defends the idea of ​​the failure of the Donbass militia, expressing critical remarks about the fact that its members do not have a clear class position and act as petty-bourgeois, irresponsible elements, whose support by the communists is inappropriate and even criminal.

In this article, I want to dwell only on a couple of comments, which, in my opinion, reflect the main idea of ​​my opponents. I will quote them for clarity.

“Spontaneous communists in all countries must first of all explain to their working people their class interests, explain that the concept of capitalist and the concept of fascist are essentially synonymous words, where the first always evolves into the second, explain that the reason for the oppression of the language, the closure of enterprises, schools, hospitals, inflation, imperialist wars, nationalism from a neighbor, job loss, lawlessness on the part of usurers, horse accounts, etc., etc., is capitalism as a system, the elimination of which will solve all these problems in one fell swoop, and not running around with a club after an individual bad official, whom should be replaced with a good one that will allow your children to study in their native language”

“Marx repeatedly warned that a premature, ill-conceived uprising would lead to the suppression of the uprising and the strengthening of reaction. As one comrade rightly remarked, theory without practice is dead, practice without theory is blind. The resistance to capital should not be blind. And then you’re so bad that people stood up against fascism, and what’s bad that people stood up against fascism?" No, Zhannochka, it’s not bad at all and it’s even good that they stood up badly that they did it blindfolded because the result is this and not otherwise. Because the question in Ukraine is not in the national liberation-and the ability to correctly raise questions means a lot in matters of victory! Ukraine is an independent country, and no one has put it on its knees! Except for the internal oligarchy-and therefore here the most correct answer would be CLASS war Because neither the USA, nor GERMANY, nor EUROPE, nor RUSSIA, neither CHINA nor the TUMBA YUMBA tribe raised the rent to the skies, did not destroy medicine, did not destroy enterprises, and did not even encroach on the language and faith. Whom this capital serves is the tenth thing, but believe me, if we overthrow the capital, then neither RUSSIA, nor the USA, nor the TUMBA YUMBA MATE KHARA tribe, nor the GREEN HUMANOIDS will attack us And if they attack, it will be a completely different story Marxism raises a lot of questions BUT one and only one of them all today and precisely one specifically taken Ukraine is facing - and this question alone is a CLASS ISSUE. This is the need for concrete CLASS WARFARE. And here, without knowledge of the theory, there is no way. So, in vain you are so DIFFERENTLY about studying theory in vain!

What can I say? Graphomania, demagogy…. This is the first thing that comes to mind after these comments. And the main thing is that this is, in my opinion, an extremely wrecking policy for the cause of the proletarian revolution, cultivating a passive position among its readers. Intentional or unintentional such sabotage is a big question. But I think that the mouthpieces that broadcast and actively defend such views act quite meaningfully and consciously.

So, what do these “comrades” want to convey to us?

 That you cannot support a social rebellion if it is not prepared enough and does not arise as written in the textbooks. After all, " Marx himself repeatedly warned that a premature and ill-conceived uprising leads to the suppression of the uprising and the strengthening of reaction. " Therefore, in no case should a communist support such undertakings, and if he fits into them, then this is a stupid, wrong, unprepared communist. We need to hone the theory and wait for ideal conditions ..

In general, we are sitting on the fifth point exactly, and we are waiting for all the cards to add up and it will be possible to make a revolution!

Thus, the “enlightened” leftists’ assessment of the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine boils down to this. 

Everything there was wrong, not according to the textbook, contradictory, meaningless, and all this could not lead to anything good. The militias and the communists themselves are to blame for this situation, who supported such a "muddy" movement. Well, how could one support the indignation of the irresponsible masses? They have a petty-bourgeois consciousness and, consequently, this resistance is carried out without taking into account the class nature of social contradictions! And the communists, look at them! Where is the clear communist agenda? Where are the clear requirements? Where are the communist slogans? Where is the organization of the masses? Why did the working people of Ukraine turn out to be ideologically unprepared by the time the conflict unfolded? What's the deal anyway? In general, everything there is doomed to failure, therefore, we have nothing to do there, we do not approve and do not support such things, but only criticize, criticize, criticize. They themselves are to blame for choking in blood ... We had to prepare in advance. And we don’t need Ukraine-2:0, we won’t support this! We will sharpen theory, engage in propaganda and wait for favorable conditions, that is, the correct revolutionary situation for a real, correct revolutionary struggle.

Well wait! What can you say? You'll wait three hundred years, and it's not your fault that it's so short... Only when all the cards are stacked, who will need you then? Who will listen to you? And who will follow you?

In general, we are dealing with utopian idealists at best, if not with provocateurs in general, who in turn accuse me of downplaying the development of quality agitation and propaganda, as well as the development of a theoretical base. And I urge you to support and fight against fascism "with wide blindfolds".

So, I'll explain.

I have never denied the importance of the development of the theoretical base, I, again, have never denied the importance of propaganda, and on the contrary, I support such undertakings in every possible way. The question is something else. What should a communist do, where should he be when such a sharp conflict arises as in the east of Ukraine?

Let's turn to the experience of successful revolutionaries, namely the Bolsheviks. Where were they and what did they do during the revolution of 1905-1907? Supported the revolution, can you imagine?! They supported a premature and ill-conceived uprising, imagine! In less than favorable conditions...

Namely, under the conditions:

- a split in the RSDLP into two factions with different tactics in the revolution;

- inconsistency in the actions of all political parties of the revolutionary-democratic camp;

- in conditions of insufficient organization and inconsistency in the actions of the working class;

- the spontaneity of the peasant movement (their performances lagged behind in time and did not coincide with the rise of the labor movement);

- in conditions when the army as a whole continued to be the backbone of the autocracy and was used by the government to suppress the revolution;

- when the bourgeoisie of Western European countries provided moral and material support to tsarism in suppressing the revolution;

- in conditions of an unfavorable balance of forces between the revolution and the counter-revolution. The autocracy was still strong both economically and politically. It relied on the army, the police, and those social-class forces that formed the basis of the government camp.

Did the Bolsheviks realize the unfavorable conditions for the victory of the revolution? Did they see society's unpreparedness for systemic revolutionary action? Were they aware of their relative weakness in the current situation? Of course, they were aware. But the Bolsheviks had no right not to support and not participate in that uprising. This would be simply a crime against proletarians and the cause of the revolution in general.

Yes, of course, one cannot compare that historical situation with the situation in the same Ukraine today. However, what they have in common is at least the fact that both social revolts were provoked mainly by the aggravation of social contradictions, which turned out to be irreconcilable for the whole society. For a class-conscious, ideologically divided society, a society not ready for serious revolutionary achievements. But, nevertheless, this society can no longer come to terms with the current situation. Therefore, to stop such an uprising is unrealistic. And not to fit into this protest movement for this or another communist party means to betray the cause of the revolution and completely devote the masses to the education of the conductors of bourgeois democracy.

After all, the masses are educated not only through videos, books and brochures. First of all, society is brought up in the context of one or another significant social activity. In the process of acquiring direct life experience in the course of solving certain urgent and urgent tasks. What kind of revolutionary education of the masses can we talk about when people who call themselves communists, Marxists independently withdraw and call others to withdraw from public life, especially in conditions of such an acute social crisis, when the question is about the life and death of people? People who are already ready to resist and who do not agree to put up with the life circumstances in which they now find themselves. What kind of development of the revolutionary movement do you dream of, gentlemen, enlightened true Marxists?

It is noteworthy that both Karl Marx and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin more than a hundred years ago already quite concretely expressed their position on this issue. So, on February 5, 1907, in the Preface to the Russian translation of Karl Marx's letters to Ludwig Kugelmann, Vladimir Ilyich wrote:

“Creating world history,” he writes, “would, of course, be very convenient if the struggle were undertaken only under the condition of infallibly favorable chances.”

Marx in September 1870 called the uprising madness. But when the masses revolted, Marx wants to go with them, to study with them in the course of the struggle, and not to read clerical instructions. He understands that trying to calculate the odds in advance with complete accuracy would be quackery or hopeless pedantry. He puts above all else the fact that the working class is heroically, selflessly and proactively creating world history. Marx looked at this story from the point of view of those who create it, not being able to infallibly take into account the chances in advance, and not from the point of view of a bourgeois intellectual who moralizes “it was easy to foresee ... it was not necessary to undertake ...”.

Marx was also able to appreciate the fact that there are moments in history when the desperate struggle of the masses, even for a hopeless cause, is necessary in order to further educate these masses and prepare them for the next struggle.

Our current quasi-Marxists, who love to quote Marx in vain in order to take only an assessment of the past from him, and not the ability to create the future, such a formulation of the question is completely incomprehensible, even alien in principle. Plekhanov did not even think about it when, after December 1905, he set about the task of "braking...".

But Marx poses precisely this question, without forgetting in the least that in September 1870 he himself recognized the madness of the uprising.

“The bourgeois canales of Versailles,” he writes, “gave the Parisians an alternative: either accept the challenge to fight, or surrender without a fight. The demoralization of the working class in the latter case would be a much greater misfortune than the death of any number of leaders.

With this we conclude our brief survey of the lessons of politics worthy of the proletariat, which Marx teaches in his letters to Kugelmann.

The working class of Russia has already proved once and will prove again and again that it is capable of "storming the sky."

Thus, the theorists and practitioners of the revolutionary struggle confirm the stated idea that the support and participation of a communist in the active struggle of the masses, even for a hopeless cause, is his direct duty in the education and development of the revolutionary movement.

Moreover, historical experience shows that despite the defeat, the active participation of the Bolsheviks in the First Russian Revolution was not meaningless and had important consequences and great significance for the further development of the revolutionary movement. There have been huge changes in public consciousness, a "revolution in the minds". Society awakened to political life, autocracy was no longer the only possible form of government, the question arose of choosing a regime. A crushing blow was dealt to the monarchist illusions of the working class. The process of clarifying class consciousness among the peasantry began as well. The proletariat has gained rich experience in political struggle. Oppositional political activity was legalized, which began to influence public life and the management of Russia ... And after the revolution of 1905-1907.

Returning to the Ukrainian issue, it is important to note that the engine of the conflict in the east of Ukraine is, first of all, neo-Nazism and violent nationalism. The armed conflict there arose as a result of the fact that people who openly opposed the incoming government and its policy of violent nationalism began to be killed, declared terrorists and traitors. Open terror began to be carried out against those who disagree with the policy of the ruling elite of the citizens of Ukraine. This policy is accompanied by persecution, repression and the physical elimination of any dissenters. In this regard, the issue of physical survival is acute for the Donbass militia.

We can condemn and criticize the participants of the anti-Maidan as much as we like for their lack of class consciousness, and the communists of Ukraine for their ineffective organization of the protesting masses. However, the fact remains. People actively and persistently opposed those policies that did not suit them. And it was these people who turned out to be ready and capable of resisting the Nazis. And the communists of Ukraine are not moving away from the masses but are experiencing this acute situation together with them. They provide their support in armed resistance, conduct agitation and propaganda in the ranks of the military and the population of recalcitrant regions. In this situation, it is impossible to raise the question of the success / failure of their activities since the outcome of this conflict is influenced by many external and internal factors. In general, these are all the same factors that were relevant for the events of 1905-1907. The problems are the same. And the lack of coordination in the actions of all political parties, and the insufficient organization and lack of coordination in the actions of the working class, and the unfavorable balance of forces between the revolution and the counter-revolution, and so on. etc.. If it were so easy to find the guilty, then revolutions would be made at the click of a button.

When I am told that “only communists and no one except communists can be the systemic opposition to fascism,” I cannot disagree with this. But I also see that the development of the communist movement will stop if the communists keep aloof from interfering in the social life of the unconscious masses. I also want to consolidate my position with the thoughts of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin expressed in the article “Political agitation and the “class point of view””:

Those who contemptuously turn up their noses at the slight importance of some of these conflicts, or at the “hopelessness” of the attempts to fan them into a general conflagration, do not realise that all-sided political agitation is a focus in which the vital interests of political education of the proletariat coincide with the vital interests of social development as a whole, of the entire people, that is, of all its democratic elements. It is our direct duty to concern ourselves with every liberal question, to determine our Social-Democratic attitude towards it, to help the proletariat to take an active part in its solution and to accomplish the solution in its own, proletarian way. Those who refrain from concerning themselves in this way (whatever their intentions) in actuality, leave the liberals in command, place in their hands the political education of the workers, and concede the hegemony in the political struggle to elements which, in the final analysis, are leaders of bourgeois democracy.

Thus, I want to emphasize that there can be no priority directions in the revolutionary education of the masses. It is carried out both through the theoretical part, high-quality propaganda activities, and through active practical participation in the public life of people.

Moreover, a revolutionary situation and an elevated level of consciousness of the masses are not enough for the victory of the revolution. Not only must there be a revolutionary situation, but there must also be a force that is able to develop this revolutionary situation and consolidate its success. That is, the party must have a force on which it can rely. Now the Communists have neither party structures (we are only entering the state of circles), nor, moreover, there is no armed force on which party structures can rely. But such a force can grow out of the armed militia of the masses.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that I am not talking about supporting any incomprehensible social unrest, but in a situation of acute social conflict, in a situation where the masses, even if not conscious, are ready to resist, the communists have no right to remain on the sidelines. Their duty is to take an active part in this struggle, and to do everything possible for the future of the revolution, even if this particular situation is doomed to failure.

At the moment, I am convinced of the need to create a single party organization as an instrument of class struggle. Precisely because there is no such organization now, the ideas and views described above are alive and actively spreading under the guise of "true-Marxism", oriented primarily to irresponsible citizens who, no doubt, sincerely support the cause of the revolution, but in view of their inconscience and unpreparedness, are victims of swindlers and crooks from science.