Civil War in Donbass- now and then, and most likely.
Lenin The Faction of Supporters of Otzovism and God-Building
Russian bourgeoisie always used the Donbass issue exclusively for their own interests, turned the issue of oppressed people of, Dniper, Kharkow, Odessa, Nokolayev and specifically of Donbass into a "bargaining chip". While the residents of Donbass and other regions have been fighting a civil war for 8 years not to be part of the Ukronazi state, Russian bourgeoisie was bringing out the “Minsk Agreements” for them as a choice. Hypocritical "appeasement" policy of Russian bourgeoisie always has been against the demand of Donbass people's right to self-determination from neo-Nazi Ukraine, and the recognition of its independence.
The reality is that people of this regions are forced to resist both Neo- Nazi Kyiv and Russian bourgeoisie and the failure of this struggle in other regions disappointed and demoralized the working people. The stand of Russian pseudo-left, who slipped into the swamp of bourgeois nationalism and social chauvinism contributed to the demoralization of the people of other regions. Having strong communist and anti-fascist base, Donbass who had no hopes and illusions for the bourgeois Russian authorities, kept on fighting-despite the persuasion of local "pro-Russian" bourgeoisie not to advocate secession from Ukraine.
"Pro-Russian" bourgeoisie in Ukraine, in order to protect their own interests tried to saddle the popular movement in the south, southeast Ukraine, through fitting into, becoming part of the Ukronazi consensus, agreeing with the Ukronazi Kyiv authorities, and with the conditions set by them at the expense of the interests of the working people of Donbass. The aims of the people's liberation movement fundamentally contradicted the interests of both bourgeois sections - both of which were trying to suppress this uprising from the very beginning.
Ukraine for Russian bourgeoisie was a stable market for energy resources and for general consumption goods. Ukraine provided the Russian labor market with cheap, highly skilled labor force. Therefore, the Russian bourgeoisie, no less than the Kyiv bourgeoisie, was interested in preserving the integrity of the state of Ukraine and restoring its borders, against the will of a significant part of the population. In fact, the entire policy of Russian bourgeoisie was aimed precisely at strengthening the Kyiv authorities and increasing trade with it.
That is why, from the very beginning they tried in every possible way to throw off the “burden of responsibility” for Donbass.
That is why, they called on the militias not to hold a referendum on May 11, 2014, in the DPR and LPR, urging them not to secede, but “to establish a direct dialogue between the current Kiev authorities and representatives of the southeast of Ukraine.
That's why, they imposed the “Minsk” on Donbass and obliged them to unconditionally fulfill these agreements, forbidding the servicemen of the people’s militia of Donbass to return fire, under conditions when the Ukronazi side did not stop shelling civilians in Donbass…
However, against all impositions and threats, Donbass people held a referendum at a time they were urged not to hold.
The liberation movement of Donbass has been waging a struggle, contrary to the interests of bourgeoisies of both. Their liberation struggle was practically being suppressed by both bourgeoisies. Undoubtedly, like most civil wars, struggles contain various groups, including petty bourgeois. However, the crux of the matter is that the contradictions between the interests of labor and capital are expressed here clearly and sharply.
"Civil war”, said Lenin, “is just as much a war as any other. He who accepts the class struggle cannot fail to accept civil wars, which in every class society are natural, and under certain conditions inevitable continuation, development, and intensification of the class struggle. That has been confirmed by every great revolution. To repudiate civil war, or to forget about it, is to fall into extreme opportunism and renounce the socialist revolution." (Military Program of the Proletarian Revolution) " Civil war against the bourgeoisie is also a form of class struggle." (Lenin, Junious Pamphlet)
For Marxist Leninists, civil wars, either anti-fascist or anti-imperialist, are NOT a private matter of that given country but a general matter concerning all anti-fascists and anti-imperialists- in Stalin's words "common cause of the whole of advanced and progressive humanity."
This issue of civil war in Ukraine has been ignored in almost all the analysis of war in Ukraine. It was ignored because analysis was based on readymade solutions learned by rote and converted into prescriptions for all conditions.
What has changed?
Reading Lenin and Stalin in regard to 1'st and 2'nd WW sheds light to this question.
First of all, contrary to all learned by rote slogans, Lenin and Stalin made a distinction between aggressive imperialists, and non-aggressive imperialists - Lenin called it "extremist", Stalin called it "aggressive".
(The question of defining imperialism isolated from its concrete "politics" but only to its "economics" is a different issue which we will discuss in the introduction of the translated related Soviet textbook)
Lenin states; "we tell ourselves that, if the extremist war party can at any moment defeat any imperialist coalition and build a new unexpected imperialist coalition against us, we at any rate will not make it any easier for them...it is a policy of preparation for defense of our country, a steadfast policy, not allowing a single step to be taken that would aid the extremist parties of the imperialist powers in the East and West. (Lenin, Report on Foreign Policy)
A few of Stalin's numerous assessments;
" As regards the aggressive countries, such as Japan, Germany, and Italy, who have already reorganized their economy on a war footing, they, because of the intense development of their war industry, are not yet experiencing a crisis of overproduction, although they are approaching it. This means that by the time the economically powerful, non-aggressive countries begin to emerge from the phase of crisis the aggressive countries, having exhausted their reserves of gold and raw material in the course of the war fever, are bound to enter a phase of very severe crisis."... The chief reason is that the majority of the non-aggressive countries, particularly Britain and France, have rejected the policy of collective security, the policy of collective resistance to aggressors, and have taken up a position of non-intervention, a position of "neutrality."
How is it that the non-aggressive countries, which possess such vast opportunities, have so easily and without resistance abandoned their positions and their obligations to please the aggressors?
Is it to be attributed to the weakness of the non-aggressive states? Of course not! Combined, the non-aggressive, democratic states are unquestionably stronger than the fascist states, both economically and militarily.
To what then are we to attribute the systematic concessions made by these states to the aggressors?" (Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.))
Aggression implies "politics with military means". Not every imperialist country, especially those who emerged due to the law of uneven economic development becomes ready for war militarily. It is related to the degree of militarization of its industry. Unlike 1st WW, early in 2nd WW not every imperialist country was (by itself) "militarily ready" for war, they had their inter-contradictions and rivalry. Thus, each for its own interest, have chosen the "appeasement" policy -or in some cases "fight against each other and weaken" policy.
For some time, the "appeasement policy" had been the policy of non-aggressive Russia and China. With the military industrial US-NATO encirclement practices that reached to its border, Ukraine and “NATO-ization” provocation of Ukraine triggered the ending of this "appeasement policy" on the part of Russia. The question of Donbass and neo-Nazi slaughter of anti-fascist population for 8 years, provided the best possible "justification" for its military action in Ukraine. So the interests of Russian Bourgeoisie shifted from an alliance with the Ukrainian Bourgeoisie- who made a pact with its rivals and suppressing the struggle of Donbass people to supporting and using their struggle for its own interests.
This shift in Russian bourgeois' policy did not change the character of the struggle of Donbass people. Their struggle against the Ukronazis primarily and Russian bourgeoisie secondarily remained the same. It only coincided their interests as far as the Ukraine neo-Nazi bourgeois state is concerned. Sophist people subjectively confuse the issue of Donbass with other incomparable examples by ignoring the fact that North and South-East of Ukraine has considerable Russian population. Even if it was not, for Marxist Leninists the concept of "chief enemy" and its determination thereof at any given conditions is a basic requirement to follow. The chief enemy of Donbass was and is the neo-Nazi Ukraine bourgeoisie and that is where its concentration has to be rather than fighting both at the same time. As Stalin pointed out under certain conditions, " only one goal needs to be set...it is foolish to fight both...A front needs to be created so that not you, but the enemy, is isolated. This is, so to speak, a tactic which makes the struggle of the Communist Party easier. Not a single person, if he is reasonable, would be willing to take all burdens on himself. Only one goal needs to be taken on...without at the same time touching the other imperialists. If this works, it will make matters easier. Well, if the (other) imperialists butt in, then the struggle against them will have to be waged... The enemy needs to be isolated cleverly.' (from -Meeting in Moscow between Stalin and Indian Communist Party representatives)
The contradiction within the enemy camp has to be utilized " to weaken the enemy and to strengthen its own reserves". Of course, the Russian bourgeoisie has the same idea in "utilizing". That's why the front fighters on the ground in Donbass are local militias as it is in Kharkiv. Russian bourgeoisie is taking it slow with the consideration of not alienating the local population and giving ample time to Kiev neo-Nazis to sit at a negotiation table. At the same time, considering the population and progressive ideological make up of Dnieper, Nikolayev, Odessa they are preparing themselves and the locals to further advance to these regions in order to force Ukraine bourgeoisie to an agreement much heavier than the one that they agreed in Istanbul, but did not comply with- despite the withdrawal of Russian army from Kyiv and Chernihiv regions.
Due to the Western, especially that of US pressure not to sit for an agreement, it is most likely that Kharkiv (which already made an official agreement with Donbass), Dnieper and Nikolayev is on the agenda and will be "liberated" in the process. Depending on the developments during this phase, Odessa is a likely choice to cut Ukraine from accessing to Black Sea. All of which has the expectation of an internal conflict within Ukraine bourgeoisie and the removal of "Euromaidan", "US-NATO" bourgeois clique from power by the Ukrainians themselves.
That coincides with the interests of the people of not only of these regions, but for the entire Ukraine. It may not be the actual " liberation of people", but it is the achievement of the battle of " immediate task", because "the social revolution is not a single battle, but a period covering a series of battles." One class enemy at a time, slowly but surely.
Notes from the discussions of MLDG
Related articles
Sophistry of Ukraine’s right to self-determination- stripping Marxism Leninism from its revolutionary spirit and siding with bourgeoisie.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
Third Article
Response to MLC- On the assessment and conclusions regarding Ukraine question
Fourth Article
On the statement of “In Defence of Communism”; The stance of the communists towards the imperialist war in Ukraine
Separate addition
Attitude to wars - Marx & Engels 1850, Lenin 1914, Stalin 1933
.jpg)
No comments