Joint Statement by Sráid Marx and Boffy’s Blog

Posted on by
Reply

A Russian soldier walks in the rubble in Mariupol’s eastern side, where fierce fighting takes place between Russian and pro-Russia forces and Ukraine on March 15, 2022.

Maximilian Clarke | SOPA Images | Lightrocket | Getty Images

This is a joint statement, by the authors of Sráid Marx and Boffy’s Blog, on the global crisis of Marxism, which has become manifest in the collapse of many “Marxist” organisations into social-imperialism, in relation to the Ukraine-Russia War.  Those organisations have abandoned the independent third camp of the international proletariat, and, instead, lined up behind one of the contending imperialist camps of NATO/Ukraine or Russia/China.  They have sought to place the world labour movement back to the position prior to World War I (WWI), which led to the split in the Second International and formation of the Third International, although such a development is not possible, today, if only because no real International exists, making the situation similar to that prior to Marx and Engels establishing the First International.

This crisis of Marxism has been a long time coming. Its roots lie in the nature of what passed for Marxism in the post-war period, a ‘Marxism’ that was, in fact, a form of petty-bourgeois socialism, manifest in its attitude to the state as the means of historical change, rather than the independent self-activity, and self-government of the working-class, and, concomitantly, in its attitude to the national question and nation state.  Both of us, with a combined experience of nearly a century in the labour movement, were recruited, in our youth, into different Trotskyist organisations – the International Marxist Group (IMG)/Peoples Democracy in Ireland, and International Communist League (I-CL), respectively – of which we were members for many years, and yet, freed from the barriers to critical thinking imposed by membership of such sects, we have, independently of each other,  arrived at almost identical conclusions about the nature of the Left, and on the critical issues of the day for the labour movement.

We have set out below a statement on the fundamental issues we believe lie behind the recent failure of many groups and individuals to develop an independent working class position on the war in Ukraine, and how this very open betrayal is a result of previous errors now compounded into an outright defence of the capitalist state.  While both of us have been activists in Western Europe, and our arguments are derived directly from this experience, the issues raised are relevant to Marxists everywhere and the experience of others across the world will confirm this experience and the lessons drawn that we have set out below.

The State

This ‘Marxism’ is fundamentally distinguished from other forms of socialism by its attitude to the state.  Not only did Marx and Engels talk about the state withering away under communism, both were intensely hostile to the capitalist state, as the state of the class enemy.  In “State and Revolution”, Lenin points out that Marx’s attitude to it was the same as the anarchists.

“… it was Marx who taught that the proletariat cannot simply win state power in the sense that the old state apparatus passes into new hands, but must smash this apparatus, must break it and replace it by a new one.”

It is only in this latter sense that Marxists differ from the anarchists, i.e. in the need for the proletariat, after it has become the ruling-class, to establish its own semi-state, to put down any slave-holder revolt by the bourgeoisie.  The idea that Marxists can call upon the existing capitalist state to act in its interest is, then, absurd.  That opportunist attitude to the state was promoted by the Lassalleans, and Fabians, in Marx and Engel’s generation, and, as Hal Draper sets out, in The Two Souls of Socialism, became the ideology of The Second International.  Marx opposed it in The Critique of The Gotha Programme, and Engels followed that with many letters, and also in his own Critique of The Erfurt Programme, in which he opposed the idea of a welfare state, National Insurance, and other forms of “state socialism”.

As Lenin says,

“Far from inculcating in the workers’ minds the idea that the time is nearing when they must act to smash the old state machine, replace it by a new one, and in this way make their political rule the foundation for the socialist reorganization of society, they have actually preached to the masses the very opposite and have depicted the “conquest of power” in a way that has left thousands of loopholes for opportunism.”

(ibid)

Stalinism adopted this opportunist attitude to the state. In the post-war period, it was taken on by organisations claiming the mantle of Trotskyism.  In Britain, for example, the Revolutionary Socialist League, better known as The Militant Tendency, talked about a Labour Government nationalising the 200 top monopolies, but all these organisations raised demands for the capitalist state to nationalise this or that industry, usually to avoid bankruptcy, and they continue to do so.  Even more ludicrously, they combine these utopian demands to the capitalist state with the further demand that it also then grant, to the workers in the industry, “workers’ control”, as though such a request would ever likely succeed, other than in conditions of dual power in society, i.e. conditions in which workers have established their own alternative centres of power, in the form of workers’ councils, enabling them to impose workers’ control, arms in hand.

What such demands also illustrate is a dangerous failure to distinguish the difference between government and state.  Governments of different complexions come and go at frequent intervals, as does the bourgeois political regime, appearing as either “democracy” or “fascism”, which are simply masks which the bourgeoisie adopt according to their needs, but the state itself remains as the real power in society, permanently organised as the defender of the ruling class, including against the government if required.

Authentic Marxism, therefore, rejects these opportunist appeals to the state to act in the interests of the working-class.  Our method is that of the self-activity and self-government of the working-class, which must organise itself to become the ruling class, and, in so doing, bring about its own liberation.  We look to the advice of Marx and Engels and The First International to develop its own cooperative production, rather than to the capitalist state and we advise it, at all times, to take its own initiative in addressing its needs within capitalism.  This includes organising its own social insurance, to cover unemployment, sickness and retirement, rather than relying upon the vagaries of state provision, which is geared to the fluctuating interests of capital, and its economic cycles, not the interests of workers.

Of course, as Marx sets out in Political Indifferentism, if the capitalist state does provide such services, we do not advocate a sectarian boycott of them, out of a sense of purity.  As Marx sets out in The Poverty of Philosophy, what makes the working-class the agent of progressive historical change is precisely its struggle against the conditions imposed upon it, which results from the limits of capitalism, and to breach those limits by replacing capitalism. Capitalism is progressive in developing the forces of production, via the accumulation of capital. This has led it to maximise the exploitation of labour/rate of surplus value but does not mean that we advocate no resistance to its demands for wage cuts, or lower conditions.  We point to the limited ability of capitalism to maximise the rate of surplus value, and so develop productive forces, as well as the limited ability of workers to raise wages, within the constraints of capitalism, and consequently, the need to abolish the wages system itself.  

Nor do we advocate a boycott of socialised healthcare, education and social care systems, but point out their limited capitalist nature, the lack of democratic control and so on.  We oppose any regression to less mature capitalist forms of private provision, not by defending the existing state forms, but by arguing the need to move forward to new forms directly owned and controlled by workers themselves.  Whilst we offer support to workers’ struggles for improvements in existing provision, and for democratic control, we do so all the better to demonstrate to workers that so long as capitalism exists, no such permanent improvement and no real democratic control is possible.

All large scale industrial capital is now, socialised capital, be it state capital or that of corporations, and so properly the collective property of the “associated producers”, as Marx describes it in Capital III.  Unlike the socialised capital of worker cooperatives, it is not, however, under the control of the associated producers, of the working class, but of shareholders and their Directors.  Short of a revolutionary situation, and condition of dual power, workers cannot force the state to concede control over that capital to them.  Even the social-democratic measures, such as those in Germany, providing for “co-determination” of enterprises, are a sham that retains control for shareholders, and simply incorporate the workers in the process of their own exploitation. 

Similarly, we do not support the sham of bourgeois-democracy, which is merely a facade for the social dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and its state, a facade they will drop in favour of fascism if their rule is challenged by workers.  We defend the democratic rights afforded to workers – to organise and to advance their class interests – but we do not confuse defence of those rights, which the working class can use, with defence of the bourgeois democratic state that continually seeks to limit, erode and threaten them outright.  

We recognise, however, that millions of workers do continue to harbour illusions in bourgeois democracy, and, so long as they do, we must try to break them from it.  That is not done by a sectarian abstention, but by utilising it, and demanding it be consistent democracy.  For example, abolition of Monarchy and hereditary positions and titles, election of judges and military top brass, abolition of the standing army, and creation of a popular militia under democratic control.  We support the workers in any such mobilisation and demands for consistent democracy, but we offer support only as the means of demonstrating the limits to such democracy and the possibility of a higher alternative, so enabling them to shed their illusions in that democracy.

The means by which we seek to mobilise the workers, in all such struggles, are not those of bourgeois society, but those of the encroaching socialist society of the future.  We advocate the creation of workplace committees of workers that extend across the limited boundaries of existing trades unions; we advocate, as and when the conditions permit, the linking up of such committees into elected workers’ councils, and the joining together of this network of workers councils on a national and international basis. We reject the idea of reliance on the capitalist state and its police to “maintain order”, or of its military to provide defence of workers, and instead look to democratically controlled Workers’ Defence Squads and Workers Militia to defend workers’ interests, including against the armies of foreign powers, terrorists and so on.

The National Question and The Nation State

The opportunist view of the state differs from the Marxist view, by presenting the state as some kind of non-class, supra-class, or class neutral body, standing above society, whereas Marxists define it as what it is, the state of the bourgeois ruling class.  The opportunist view of the state is a petty-bourgeois view, reflecting the social position of the petty-bourgeoisie as an intermediate class, standing between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and which sees its role as mediating between these two great class camps. 

It denies the class division of society.  The symbol of this denial is the use of phrases such as “the nation”,“society”, “the people” and so on, which subsume the antagonistic classes, in each society, into one “nation”, and then transforms the state into being the state of “the nation”, or “the people”, rather than of the ruling class.  This used to be the ABC of Marxism, and yet the Ukraine-Russia War, has seen a large part of the Left collapse into these opportunist and nationalist, as opposed to socialist, ideas.

The logic of this opportunist position flows inevitably from their view of the state as the agent of social change, as against the role of the working-class itself.  It is necessarily a petty-bourgeois, nationalist view, as against a proletarian, internationalist view.  It demurs from class struggle, in order to privilege and promote the combined interests of all classes within the nation, as a “national interest”, which necessarily sets that “national interest” against the “national interest” of other nations.  The interests of workers of different nations are, thereby, brought into an antagonistic relation with each other, rather than with their own ruling class.  Again, this used to be the ABC of Marxism, symbolised by Marx’s statement that the workers have no country, and appeal, in The Communist Manifesto, “Workers of The World Unite”.

In WWI, the opportunists in the Second International, continued to repeat these statements, but only as mantras, whilst, in practice, abandoning class struggle, and lining up under the banner of their particular capitalist state, in alliance with their own bourgeoisie.  This characterises the positions of much of the Left, in relation to the Ukraine-Russia war, whether they have lined up in support of the camp of NATO/Ukraine on the one side, or Russia/China on the other, under claims of an “anti-imperialist” struggle, or war of national independence/national self-determination.  

Marx argued that the workers of no nation could themselves be free, whilst that nation held others in chains.  That is why it is the duty of socialists, in each nation, to oppose their own ruling class in its attempts to colonise, occupy, or in any other way oppress other nations.  While the formation of nation states was historically progressive, as it was necessary for the free development of capitalist production and its development of the productive forces, the subsequent destruction of nation states, and formation into multinational states, is also historically progressive, for the same reason.  But, just as Marxists’ recognition of the historically progressive role of capitalism, in developing the productive forces, which involves it exploiting workers, does not require us to acquiesce in that exploitation, so too the historically progressive role of imperialism, in demolishing the nation state, and national borders, does not require us to acquiesce in its methods of achieving that goal.  (See: Trotsky – The Programme of Peace).

In both cases, we seek to achieve historically progressive goals, but without the limitations that capitalism imposes on their achievement, by moving beyond capitalism/imperialism to international socialism and communism.  The struggle against militarism and imperialist war is fundamental to presenting the case, and mobilising that struggle for, the overthrow of capitalism, and its replacement by international socialism.  We carry out these struggles on the basis of the political and organisational independence of workers from the bourgeoisie and its state, on the basis of Permanent Revolution.  (See Marx’s Address to the Communist League, 1850)

This was the basis of the position set forward by Lenin in relation to The National Question.  The task of Marxists, in oppressor states, is to oppose that oppression by their own ruling class and to emphasise the right to free secession, whilst the task of Marxists in oppressed states is also to oppose their own ruling class, pointing to its exploitation of the workers, and unreliable and duplicitous nature, and emphasising not the right to free secession, but the right to voluntary association.  It is what determines the Marxist position of opposing, for example, Scottish nationalism, Brexit, or other such forms of separatism across the globe.  As Lenin put it, we are in favour of the self-determination of workers, not the self-determination of nations.

In 1917, following the February Revolution, in Russia, the Mensheviks, and some of the Bolsheviks, such as Stalin, Kamenev and Zinoviev, also changed their position of opposing the war, and argued that the Russian state had become “revolutionary democratic”, i.e. a non-class state, overseeing a non-class form of democracy.  Lenin vehemently opposed that social-patriotism, and threatened to split the party unless it was rejected.  However, this position was never abandoned by Stalin, who resumed it after Lenin’s death, making it the foundation of his strategy of the Popular Front, applied in relation to national liberation struggles, for example “the bloc of four classes”, in China, in 1925-7, and in opposing fascism, as applied in France (1934-9), and in Spain (1934-6), and subsequently, in Stalinism’s collapse into what Trotsky called “communo-patriotism” in WWII.

In the post-war period, it was not only social-democrats, reformists and Stalinists that adopted this class collaborationist Popular Front approach.  In place of the Marxist principle of the self-determination of the working-class, the petty-bourgeois Left, including those that described themselves as “Trotskyist”, threw themselves into supporting struggles for national self-determination and did so, not on the basis of simply opposing the role of their own ruling-class, but of actively supporting the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalist forces engaged in those struggles.

Indeed, not only were the forces involved the bourgeois class enemy of the proletariat, but, in many cases, as in, for example, Korea, Vietnam, Algeria and so on, they were aggressively anti-working-class forces with which Marxists should have had no truck whatsoever, and against which Marxists should have been warning the workers, and against which they should have been aiding workers to defend themselves.  (See: The Theses On The National and Colonial Questions).  Again, the petty-bourgeois socialists had adopted the mantra of “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”, identifying imperialism as the enemy, and so the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalists fighting that imperialism, as their friend.  This was even the case where these forces violently suppressed Trotskyists within their own country.  Today these forces have presided over or opened the door not to workers’ power but to capitalism. 

This was never the position of Marxism, as set out, for example, in the Comintern’s Theses On The National and Colonial Questions.  It is a perversion of that position introduced by Stalinism, and later adopted by the petty-bourgeois Left, in part under pressure from Stalinism, but also from peer pressure in the petty-bourgeois, student milieu in which it became embedded, and from which came much of the movement in support of these national liberation struggles, and from which it sought to recruit new members.  In line with the principles of Permanent Revolution, first set out by Marx in his 1850 Address, not only was it necessary to ensure the political and organisational independence of the proletariat, and to arm it to defend itself against the national bourgeoisie, but, in so far as the proletariat was led to form any temporary tactical alliance with the peasantry and petty-bourgeoisie, it was on the basis of an alliance with those masses, and not with the parties representing those classes, and certainly not with the bourgeois state.

“Lenin, it is understood, recognized the necessity of a temporary alliance with the bourgeois-democratic movement, but he understood by this, of course, not an alliance with the bourgeois parties, duping and betraying the petty-bourgeois revolutionary democracy (the peasants and the small city folk), but an alliance with the organizations and groupings of the masses themselves – against the national bourgeoisie.”

(Trotsky – Problems of The Chinese Revolution)

This is in stark contrast to the position of the Left, in all national liberation struggles, in the post-war period, and in its position in relation, now, to the Ukraine-Russia war.

The Russia-Ukraine War

Like WWI, the Russia-Ukraine war has become an acid test of the Left.  As with WWI, most of that Left has failed the test.  That the Left social-democrats, the reformist socialists, and Stalinists should fail only repeats their failures going back to WWI, but for those that claim the mantle of Trotskyism to fail it indicates the crisis of Marxism, and that the nature of that Left, as described above, is actually petty-bourgeois.  

It is no surprise that those that have collapsed into becoming cheerleaders for one or other of the two contending imperialist camps have done so by using the arguments that opportunists used in WWI, and in WWII, based upon arguments of national self-determination, and “anti-imperialism”.  But, nor is it a surprise that the Stop The War Coalition, which opposes the war on both sides, does so not on the basis of Marxism and Leninism, and the principles of class struggle and revolutionary defeatism, but on the basis of opportunism and social-pacifism.

The Marxist position is not only that the war is reactionary on both sides, and so we oppose the war; it is also a recognition that such wars are not inexplicable events, or caused by fascist megalomaniacs, but flow from the nature of imperialism, its drive to create a global single market, dictated by the needs of large-scale capital itself.  It is inevitably led to do this by the violent competition of nation states (and alliances of such states), each seeking to assert their dominant position in any new international formation.  Simply appealing for peace is therefore utopian, and ultimately reactionary, just as much as appealing for capitalist enterprises to stop competing against each other or forming larger monopolies and cartels.

We do not argue for an end to capitalist competition or monopolies, but for workers to take over those monopolies, and, thereby, to be able to replace competition with increasing cooperation between them, as part of a planned organisation of production and distribution.  That is the real basis of class struggle, not economistic, distributional struggles for higher wages within a continuation of capitalism.  Similarly, we do not argue for an end to wars between capitalist states, or the destruction of nation states and formation of larger multinational states, such as the EU, as part of forming a world state, but for workers to overthrow the existing capitalist states and establish workers’ states, as the only permanent means of ending wars, and rationally constructing a single global state, based upon voluntarily association.  That is the basis of class struggle at an international level, of the concept of revolutionary defeatism, as against utopian demands for peace, the demands of social-pacifism.

The Marxist position of revolutionary-defeatism, in relation to the Russia-Ukraine War, as with any such war, is not simply about opposing the war, but about explaining to workers that these wars are fought using their blood, but not for their interests, and that they will continue to suck their blood so long as capitalism continues to exist.  In the same way that Marxists intervene in strikes  to explain that workers will continue to have to strike for decent wages, so long as capitalism exists, and that such strikes will not, ultimately, prevent their condition in relation to capital deteriorating; so they intervene in imperialist wars to explain that they will continue so long as capitalism/imperialism exists, and so the answer is not a utopian demand for peace, but a class struggle for the overthrow of capitalism/imperialism itself, to turn the imperialist war into civil war!

In the post-war period, the petty-bourgeois Left became engrossed in the rash of “anti-imperialist” and national liberation struggles that erupted as the old European colonial empires collapsed, in part under pressure from US imperialism that sought to break open all of the monopolies and protected markets of those colonial empires, in order to give free access to US multinational corporations to exploit vast reserves of labour.  At the same time, Stalinism encouraged the development of support for such movements, as agents of the global strategic interests of the USSR, in competition with US imperialism.  As in China, in 1925-7, it sought to ally itself with the national bourgeoisie, and subordinate the interests of workers and poor peasants in these former colonies to that of the national bourgeoisie, which it sought to draw into its orbit, as symbolised by the Third World Movement.  This same, class collaborationist, Popular Front approach, was adopted by the Stalinists in the formation of the various Solidarity campaigns established to support these “anti-imperialist”, national liberation struggles.

Whilst the “Trotskyist” Left continued to repeat the mantra of opposition to Popular Fronts, in practice, and seeing large numbers of students drawn to the campaigns of solidarity with this or that national liberation movement, nearly all of which were bourgeois in nature, and many of which were particularly authoritarian and anti-working-class, as with the Algerian NLF and Viet Cong, it joined in, and promoted these kinds of cross-class, popular frontist organisations.  It did so for fear of isolation and losing out in the potential for expanding its contact lists of possible new members in its rivalry with competing sects.

The Ukraine Solidarity Committee is just the latest in a long list of such cross-class, Popular Frontist organisations that throws their support behind, and so acts as useful idiots for, some reactionary national bourgeoisie, which is the enemy of the workers of the given state.  In the past, these Popular Front organisations often gave a pass to the USSR and its allies, whereas, today, the USC gives a pass to, and allies with, NATO imperialism and its associates in the EU, G7 and so on.  On the other side, those social-imperialists that have thrown themselves into a cross-class alliance in support of Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China, on the basis that they are being threatened by NATO/US imperialism, are simply the mirror image of the USC.

What Is To Be Done?

As two individuals, we do not suffer the hubris of thinking that we have the answers to this modern crisis of Marxism, but we do believe that such a crisis exists when self-proclaimed Marxists openly support one capitalist state in war against another, each backed by one or the other of the two largest capitalist states in the world  A similar condition exists today as that in the early days of Marxism, with only a handful of authentic Marxists, amidst a sea of petty-bourgeois sects that portray themselves as Marxists while peddling reformist programmes; a still not insignificant number of Stalinists and other Left reformists; and with mass workers parties that have reverted to being simply openly bourgeois parties, much as with the British Liberals and German Democrats of 1848.

Indeed, the British Labour Party, under Starmer, has declined even more than that, becoming dominated by the reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalism promulgated by the Tory party.  Yet, in the absence of mass socialist workers parties, the working-class continues to engage in its own struggles, for increased wages to counter inflation, for example, but also to look to these bourgeois workers’ parties (or simple bourgeois parties) as their political representatives, and Marxists cannot ignore this reality.  Our task is to work alongside the working-class, in and out of struggle, and break it from the current delusions in those parties, and in bourgeois-democracy itself.

Appeals to create yet another Marxist sect, or to create some new Workers Party have proven to be pointless.  Engels advised US socialists to work with the existing workers parties, and, likewise, prior to the creation of the Labour Party, advised Eleanor Marx and her associates to work with the Liberal Clubs, rather than the existing sects such as the SDF or ILP.  As he noted, in 1848, he and Marx and their supporters had joined the German Democrats, and operated inside it, as its organised Left-Wing.  

Our fundamental principle, as set out by Marx in his 1850 Address, is to maintain the political and organisational independence of the working-class as it seeks its self-emancipation.  But, as Marx and Engels showed, that is not incompatible with working inside existing mass workers parties.  Whether that is done openly or covertly is only a question of tactics, determined by what is possible at the given time.  The existence of the Internet to produce online publications and networks makes that much easier today than it was even 25 years ago.

In the 1930’s, when the forces congregating around him and his supporters were very small, Trotsky advised them to join the various socialist parties, so as to operate within them, as an organised Left-Wing, and, thereby, to begin to build the required numbers for the creation of new mass revolutionary parties.  It was the formation of an undeclared United Front with those rank and file workers.  It is again forced upon us given the tiny forces of authentic Marxism.  Our goal is not some Quixotic attempt to capture those parties, but simply to build the required numbers of authentic Marxists to be able to create effective revolutionary workers parties as alternatives to them, and, then, to move from an undeclared United Front with the rank and file of those parties to an open and declared proposal for a United Front, exposing the leaders of those parties and drawing ever larger numbers of workers to the banner of international socialism.

That is in the future, but the first step is to establish a network of authentic Marxists, much as Marx and Engels did with the Communist Correspondence Committees, and as Lenin and Plekhanov did with the Marxist discussion circles that over time laid the basis for the creation of the RSDLP.  

If you are in agreement with the principles set out above, in this joint statement, whether you are an individual or organisation, we ask you to contact either of the authors via the comments sections of these statements on our respective blogs.  If you have a social media presence, then give us the details so that we can share it with our readers, and we would ask that you do the same, for everyone else as part of an expanding global network of authentic Marxists, each supporting, in whatever way they can, the work of the others, and facilitating a discussion and development of authentic Marxist ideas.

The war in Ukraine (15) – war as a morality play

Posted on by
3

In 2013 the President of the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) wrote in the Washington Post that ‘Ukraine is the biggest prize’ and its ‘choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents’, and therefore a critical step toward regime change in Russia.  NED is an Non Governmental Organisation funded largely by the US government and intended, as its name suggests, to promote ‘democracy’ around the world.  Democracy, that is, only when it is subservient to US interests and supported only in so far as these are respected.

So, we have a non-governmental organisation funded by government, claiming to be independent of it but boasting of leading the way in its foreign policy.  In 2018 its National Defence Strategy defined ‘the re-emergence of long-term strategic competition’ with Russia and China as the ‘central challenge to US prosperity and security.’

As we have repeatedly noted, the position of the Left that supports Ukraine, not coincidentally, is almost identical to the position and even arguments of the governments and mass media of Western capitalist states.

Both justify their position on the basis that Ukraine is defending democracy, for itself and for others.  The pro-war Left highlights ‘Russian imperialism’ and the role of Putin (but then, so does the NED), and it also supports regime change, without seeming to wonder what sort of regime change would be effected by the victory of western imperialism.

Of course, this left also claims to oppose western imperialism and will claim that it seeks a different sort of regime change.  Except it has supported western imperialist intervention in support of Ukraine and in doing so has objectively supported exactly the sort of regime change that western imperialism wants. It thinks irrelevant to the cause of the war that NATO was to be enlarged so that Ukraine could potentially be the site of missiles only 5 minutes from Moscow, and wonders not what this implies for the possibility of nuclear war.

This expansion means nothing to them in understanding the motivations and objectives of any of the actors and therefore the nature of the war.  No consideration of this is allowed to question why socialists should support the self determination of a state that has eagerly sought this position.  Instead, the foreseeable and foreseen consequences are made irrelevant by free-floating moral concerns that Marxists reject precisely because they are divorced from the real world.  Whatever ideas populate their heads, with whatever motivations, are irrelevant, and it does not matter what people call themselves or what they think they are.

Political programmes have objective effects independent of intention, which is precisely the point of seeking their implementation.  It matters not only to state what you are opposed to (e.g. Russian ‘imperialism’) but what you are for (workers liberation) because this determines what means are excluded (NATO arms to Ukraine) and what objectives are to be opposed (including Ukrainian and NATO victory).  Only the belief that some moral case stands above such considerations can justify support for Ukraine and of western imperialist backing for it; but if this is the case we have far departed from a materialist and Marxist understanding of politics and war.

How far we have was revealed in a Facebook exchange of views with a supporter of Ukraine who asked rhetorically ‘do people seriously believe that if Ukraine did not get weapons from NATO then the war would be brought to a peaceful end?’  As if with weapons to Ukraine it would!  He states that ‘the people of Ukraine need and deserve our support and reveal a level of empathy, of basic humanity that appears sadly lacking in those who see the main problem as Ukraine receiving the means for the continuing existence of their independent state.’

We are asked for ‘empathy’ and ‘basic humanity’ so that weapons can be supplied that will wound and kill humans who must, it seems, not be deserving of empathy or considerations of ‘basic humanity’.  And all this because we must support the provision of weapons so that the people of Ukraine receive ’the means for the continuing existence of their independent state.’

But since when did capitalist states belong to their people?  Who is the ‘their’ in ‘their independent state’? What sort of state is the state of Ukraine? The same one that walked its people into a war through its pursuit of NATO membership against the wishes often of a majority of its people?  How independent is Ukraine now, when it relies completely on western imperialism in order to continue the war?  How ‘independent’ will it be when the war is over and it becomes subsumed under the imperialist alliance with an economy destroyed, millions of its people in exile and up to its neck in debt to western countries and their vulture financial institutions?

The only explanation for such stupidity is the belief in vacuous moralistic claims divorced from the real world that none of the parties at war are themselves stupid enough to believe.

These moralistic illusions rest on one event–the Russian invasion on 24 February last year.  This is meant to be not only the grounds to explain everything but also the explanation itself, and by itself the imperative to support the Ukrainian state.  But of course, one event explains nothing, requiring explanation itself, never mind mandating the correct socialist response.  Even a series of events are in themselves no explanation of anything, but simply a series of happenings.

The pro-war left is compelled to go beyond this event themselves by insisting that the issue is one of Russian imperialism and self-determination of Ukraine, although by deriving their understanding solely from the Russian invasion they are unable even to account for this event, previous Ukrainian actions, or the subsequent actions of Western imperialism.  And this is before we even consider just what is meant by Russian imperialism; the nature of the Ukrainian state and its actions and policy; and the strategy and actions of western imperialism before the invasion.

These latter issues have been dealt with before; it should be enough to note here that we face a proxy war by western imperialism, through the Ukrainian capitalist state against the Russian capitalist state, for us to determine that the working class has no interest in supporting either.   The actions of all these actors are selectively presented by the pro-war left in order to bolster their pre-determined support for Ukraine, with the emphasis on the mental state and ideological declarations of Putin filling in for the lack of empirical support for the victimhood of the Ukrainian state, the progressive role of western imperialism and just why the Russians decided they needed to invade when they hadn’t done so before when it might have been easier to do so.

The point then of this series of posts has been, not to argue that the facts and events enumerated in themselves determine the correct approach to the war, but that they rebut the pro-war left’s support for Ukraine and western imperialism.  This support is based not on Marxist analysis of the political forces but a litany of events that are meant to present a tidy narrative that comfortably brings one to express sympathy and solidarity with the ‘Ukrainian people’; without real life complications of people being divided into classes and ‘Ukraine’ being constituted by a state that, being a state, is actually separate from its people.

Along the road of this narrative the character of the Ukrainian state does not appear on the stage, and its manipulation of the Ukrainian people is absent.  The character that is on stage is of the Ukrainian ‘people’, which substitutes for the many characters of the classes that inhabit Ukraine, including the Ukrainian working class, that might, if given the floor, express its own interests.  The character of western imperialism simply arrives at the climax with sword and shield to defend the actor called ‘Ukraine’, although this role too is largely hidden.  The Western saviour simply gives his sword and shield to the Ukrainian with the implication that they are to fight to the death, either theirs, the Russians or both.

This type of dramatic theatre, descended from the ancient Greeks, takes the audience from point A to point B, from invasion to support for ‘the resistance’, along the way filling it with emotions and sensations, of sympathy and outrage, earnestly hoping for a purgative resolution, a sort of happy ending for those suffering, in so far as one can be envisaged.

To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht; when asking whether one should feel the torment of someone suffering, he had his character respond that to do so ‘I must know why he is suffering’.  Knowing why requires more than awareness that there was an invasion; that people are dying; that a perverted version of Lenin’s slogan of self-determination is the right answer, and that the biggest warmongers on the planet–out of character–are somehow doing the right thing.

Series Concluded

Back to part 14

A reactionary war throws up more reaction

Posted on by
1

The ‘mutiny’ by Yevgeny Prigozhin and at least some of his mercenary army is a bolt from the blue, at least for those not in security circles in the Russian Federation, and like all bolts from the blue both confuses and illuminates.  As I write it is impossible to determine the precise cause or their exact future course but it is possible to reflect on it politically, if only because it confirms the arguments and analysis of this blog–that we are witness to a reactionary war on both sides that the working class must oppose.

But let’s take a step back first.  In the last few weeks the Ukrainian state launched its much heralded offensive even while hesitating to declare it itself.  While this offensive is not exhausted, and the Ukrainian armed forces (UAF) still have the majority of its prepared forces available, it is clear that they cannot be assembled in such a way as to achieve the necessary mass and force to make significant advances.  Instead, it would appear that they have suffered many casualties with reports of some surrendering rather than take part in what they have called suicide missions, with prisoners condemning their commanding officers.

Supporters of the Ukrainian state and its war with is allies in western imperialism will either bury their heads in the sand or decry these actions; this is, after all, a war of national liberation for them, and there is no point here pointing out the absurdity of such a war being fought at the urging of the United States, Britain, France and Germany etc. with their own long record of involvement in war.  They should, instead, be welcoming these Ukrainian workers in uniform deciding that they do not think this war is worth dying for.

The pro-war left which exclaims the necessity for Ukrainians to defend themselves will have to explain why doing so is necessary when it only leads to their death.  But then perhaps for them it’s not really about the lives of ordinary Ukrainians but the necessity for the Ukrainian state to win regardless of the cost.  As this blog has pointed out, this would simply be the continuing identity of the politics of this left with the policy of western imperialism–from its explanation of the cause of the war to its political character and its ultimate objective.

For socialists, the refusal to fight for their respective capitalist states, both Ukrainian and Russian, is precisely the way forward for the working class of both countries, as a first necessary step to asserting their own interest over both.  It is, after all, how the Russian revolution came about, which some of this left might want to recall.

The internal conflict between Prigozhin and Russian authorities also exposes the equal stupidity of those on the left who think the Russian state is fighting a progressive war. Where is the popular mobilisation of the Russian working class and which side should it be called upon to support were it to exist?

For the pro-war supporters of Russia this is must be the Russian armed forces loyal to Putin and his regime, a regime that suppresses any independent activity of the working class and presents as progress a more equal division of the world between the largest capitalist powers.  A policy variously labelled as pluripolarity or multipolarity but which simply rearranges the vectors of power of the various capitalist states under the pretence of ‘anti-imperialism’.

True to the simple-mindedness of the pro-war left, the twitter-sphere is replete with supporters of Ukraine deriding those opposed to the war, asking if will they organise a march to demand Putin lay down his weapons and enter peace talks with Prigozhin; asking is it only against some wars?  They mock this opposition by saying it should urge Putin to cede territory to Prigozhin, while stating that it seeks desperately to find a way to blame western imperialism.

It says something for the mindset of this left that it misses no opportunity to claim how blameless western imperialism is, as if the continued existence of NATO, its escalation of the proxy war in Ukraine and its very existence as a system of oppression and exploitation matters not a jot. A default position that comes to the defence of western imperialism is not in any sense left wing, even taking account of the purely relative and imprecise nature of such a description.

For those of us opposed to both reactionary forces in Russia, we might ask this pro-war ‘left’ what side it proposes to support, since it believes that this is obligatory, or has it discovered that this is not necessarily the case? Has it discovered that not all those opposed to Putin are progressive and that not all those getting in the way of great Russian imperialism should be supported?

Perhaps it might be considered unfair to pick up on glib remarks on twitter, if only because it provokes a response that does no more than expose the shallowness of their position.  But this is precisely the point. Their child-like school playground remarks are a faithful reflection of the political arguments of the ‘left’ supporters of Ukraine, who can go no further than invoking Lenin’s policy of self-determination of nations that they obviously don’t understand, and which, if they were serious about, would attempt to explain how they avoid the criticism of Lenin in his writings of the position they now support.

Both the Ukrainian offensive and the internecine conflict within the Russian state, are clear illustration of the panoply of reactionary forces engaged in the war out of which only even more reactionary events will come if it is allowed to continue.  Over the last sixteen months the war has escalated with its supporters on both sides oblivious to their (minor) role in assisting this escalation through their support for it, even while they warn of the future disaster potentially arising from further escalation.

They have turned Marxism into a hollow series of formulas and slogans that are evacuated of any working class content and become vessels that support western imperialism through demanding ‘self-determination’ (of already independent capitalist states) or support for ‘anti-imperialism’ (on behalf of some of the most powerful capitalist states on the planet).

The longer it goes on the more these ‘lefts’ become useful idiots of the various capitalist powers and an obstacle to the creation of a movement that knows that it can be socialist only if it opposes capitalist war.  

Debating the war (3 of 3) – the analogy with Ireland

Posted on by
2

A recurring analogy made is with the Irish nationalist struggle against British imperialism and I have addressed this before.

Supporters of Ukraine have told us that ‘when internationalists support the Ukrainians right to resist militarily the Russian invasion and obtain arms from NATO countries, it is not an endorsement of NATO. There have been many movements of national liberation in the past which have called upon imperialist countries for arms without being condemned by socialists: Irish nationalists in 1917, the Spanish republic in 1936, the communist resistance in World War Two, to name a few.’

I wrote in reply –‘Let’s just take the Irish example. Was Ireland an independent state in 1916 or a British colony? Were the Irish rebels in 1916 seeking to join the German imperialist alliance, or did they claim ‘We serve neither King nor Kaiser’? Did the Irish workers movement participate as a separate political and armed force from the bourgeois nationalists, and did not James Connolly repeatedly declare the political independence of the Irish working class? Was his anti-imperialism the anti-imperialism of opposition to foreign rule or opposition also to capitalism and for the creation of a Socialist Republic? Where does the capitalist Ukrainian state and the ‘Ukrainian resistance’ stand on all these questions today?’

‘But let’s not leave the Irish analogy there. What happened to the Irish national struggle when the forces of the working class proved to be too weak and the movement became a purely bourgeois one? ‘Labour’ was told to wait, just as in Ukraine today, and the forces of bourgeois nationalism accepted a settlement with imperialism that left the working class more divided than before, subject to two reactionary regimes that inflicted years of austerity, unemployment and emigration built upon Catholic Church abuse of women and children and Protestant sectarianism and discrimination. Today the capitalist Irish state supports the Ukrainian capitalist state and imperialism, particularly that of the US, upon which its current success depends . . .’

I could have gone on to reference the policy of Marxists in Ireland over the last 50 or so years, which, despite many mistakes, never collapsed into support for Irish republicanism, never ceased to organise separately, never sought alliance with or peddled illusions in the Irish bourgeoisie and never looked, unlike republicans, to right-wing or establishment forces in the United States.  The nature of that struggle meant that the idea of support from any western imperialist power would have been considered ridiculous.

In the Tendance Coatsey debate, one comment proclaims ‘I wonder if “Irish Marxism” would be in favour of someone arguing that Irish self-determination was of no interest to Irish workers since all it led to was a “bourgeois” republic. And after all, Irish nationalism enjoyed the support of imperialist Germany in both world wars.’

This is answered in the paragraphs above, but let’s carry out a thought experiment, which is obviously purely theoretical, to see how much the self-determination of independent capitalist states matters to Marxists.

Imagine that Britain had decided to go for the hardest of Brexits, with the ambition of setting itself up as a strategic geopolitical competitor to the European Union.  This involved the hardest of hard borders within the island and severe disruption to trade between the Irish State and the rest of the European Union as transit through Britain became impossible.  This precipitated armed republican attacks along the border on various institutions of the Northern State which were answered by the arrival of British troops to suppress the attacks.

Within the North of Ireland the arrival of these troops and armed clashes raised political tension enormously with riots and deaths in Belfast, Derry and other smaller towns.  Republican groups hailed these circumstances as another example of ‘Nuair a bhíonn deacracht ag Sasana, bíonn deis ag Éirinn’ – ‘England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity’ and launched an armed campaign against British rule.  In the Irish State the ruling parties called upon the Irish people to resist British imperialism.

The conflict between Britain and the EU cannot be confined to Ireland and the English Channel is closed to trade while there are clashes between the Royal Navy and French vessels.  To signal their full support to the Irish member state and prevent it buckling to British demands the EU sends its own troops to bolster the meagre Irish Army confronting the British.

What would be the attitude of socialists to such a march towards war?  Would we support the self-determination of Ireland and its historically justified struggle against British imperialism and partition?  Would we welcome the intervention of the EU as temporary allies in a morally justified struggle alongside the Irish capitalist state?  Certainly republicans in the North would hail the new anti-imperialist struggle and the opportunity to fight for a ‘Socialist Republic’ and commend their renewed role as defenders of the Catholic people in the North, pretty much regardless of its effectiveness.

Well, this would be an extraordinary turn of events, but Irish socialists would begin by interrogating the claims of its own rulers and state, especially its claims to be defending the democratic rights of the Irish people.  We would recall that it had viciously repressed previous armed revolts against partition and had opposed any progressive movement towards Irish unity while allying with British imperialism.

This previous collaboration would be held up as proof that there was no fundamental conflict, and certainly no fundamental difference, between British imperialism and the alliance of the Irish state with the rest of the European Union.  There would therefore be no grounds upon which the Irish working class should follow its own state in a war against Britain on behalf of one side of the imperialist rivalry between Britain and the EU, which would determine the nature of the war.

The same interests would be true for workers in Britain, who would have no interest in supporting British imperialist antagonism to the EU.  In the North of Ireland socialists would fight sectarian division, which the British state would use to bolster its own position on the island, while the Irish state would be compelled to base itself on the other side of the sectarian divide.

In summary, there are no circumstances in which Irish socialists would give up their independent organisation to support the Irish capitalist state, in or out of alliance with outside imperialist powers, for the sake of a struggle under a banner of self determination, in which neither of these has any interest.  A war that saw the European working classes kill each other for the sake of a capitalist state that has always been content with the partition of the country, while selling itself as a tax haven for US multinationals, is one that only someone lost to socialism could consider supporting.

For many years radicals in Britain confused opposition to British imperialism in Ireland and support for Irish democracy with support for the Irish republican movement.  This movement has now given up any serious pretence at struggle against British rule and accepted its role as partners in office with one of the most reactionary sectarian parties in Europe.  Some of the British and European left have learned nothing from this experience but are stupid enough to point to Ireland as justification for their support for a different capitalist state but the same imperialism they once opposed.

Back to part 2

Debating the war (2 of 3) – lessons from the past

Posted on by
8

The debate on the war on the Tendance Coatesy blog has given rise to lots of references to other past conflicts that the supporters of Ukraine spin to argue that we should now support it today.  A typical one includes the following:

‘The arguments to support Vietnam against the US and the Spanish Republic against the fascists were not that the forces leading these struggles were good. It is that expelling the US from Vietnam, and preventing the victory of Spanish fascism, were very far from a matter of indifference from a working-class, socialist point of view.’

The first problem with this is that the poster (a better word would be imposter) has argued that the forces leading the struggle in Ukraine are good and this includes the Ukrainian capitalist state and western imperialism.  As we noted in the previous post, he argues that imperialism is defending the working class.

That is the first point.

The second point is that, yes indeed, Marxists were not indifferent to the struggle against US imperialism in Vietnam or the Spanish civil war against fascism, but these show how far away his position in support of ‘Ukraine’ is from the Marxist position on these wars and the current one.

Marxists opposed US imperialism in Vietnam and worked for its defeat and opposed fascism in Spain with the same objective.  In the former, Vietnam was a colony fighting for independence, and no matter how many times supporters of Ukraine claim it was a colony they cannot claim that it still is, although one poster on Tendance Coatsey didn’t appear to understand the difference between the past and present tense.  Ukraine was and is an independent capitalist state and it is not the job of socialists to defend independent capitalist states in whatever wars they engage. Would, for example, the pro-Ukraine left still be supporting it if it still had its armed forces occupying Iraq alongside the United States?

In Spain a bourgeois democratic government was being challenged by a mass workers movement that had the potential to overthrow this government and create a workers’ state.  Supporters of Ukraine can’t point to an independent working class movement in that country, and far from wanting to overthrow the Ukrainian capitalist state they want us all to join imperialism in supporting it and ensuring it is armed to the teeth.  The difference is very clear and, absent malign motives, it is difficult to see why this is always missed and ignored.  In Spain the obvious task was to defeat the fascist insurrection, not as an alternative to overthrowing the bourgeois Republican government but as part of the same process of permanent revolution.

What Marxists did not do (or should not have done) was politically support either the bourgeois Republican Government in Spain or the Stalinist Viet Cong in Vietnam. What was necessary then and necessary now is the independent organisation of the working class that will fight against its enemies both foreign and domestic. What left supporters of Russia fail to appreciate is that if there was an independent working class movement in Ukraine it would not be supporting the Russian invasion but fighting it and it own capitalist state. The invasion by the Russian state is not about the liberation of Ukrainian workers, as its treatment of its own amply demonstrates. How this would be done would be a question of tactics but absolutely excluded is support for one’s own capitalist state and failure to organise against it on the grounds that it is doing what you want it to do already.

In Spain, it was support for the bourgeois government that ensured that the fight against fascism would not succeed, while in Vietnam the Stalinists repressed the Marxist movement and you can now visit the country as a tourist to view its capitalist society, although perhaps without seeing the sweatshops.

Vietnam was fighting a war against colonialism while in Spain the fight against fascism was to open up the possibility of socialist revolution.  In Ukraine the war was provoked by the moves by that state to join the world’s premier imperialist military alliance, and there is nothing progressive about this.  In so far as Ukrainian workers have needed to defend themselves they have needed to do so to prevent their state taking this course before the war; they need now to oppose the war in whatever way they can, and either in ‘victory’ or defeat they will need to resist the predations of western imperialism once the war is over.  The reactionary character of the Russian invasion is illustrated by the fact that winning Ukrainian workers to the second and third tasks is now immeasurably harder because of it.

‘Ukraine’ is so far away from any notion that it is involved in a progressive war that we have hundreds, if not thousands, of far right Russians fighting for it against Russia because, it appears, Russia isn’t reactionary enough for them!  And this is the ‘Ukraine’ socialists are supposed to support!

That such repugnant outcomes are advanced is the result of the lack of any class analysis by the supporters of ‘Ukraine’ who wrap the interests of the working class within its capitalist state, which itself is embraced by western imperialism, leaving the pro-Ukrainian Left supporting western imperialism and searching for spurious and fraudulent  arguments to defend themselves.

So, we get such comments that there aren’t enough imperialist troops in Ukraine to justify calling it a proxy war, when everyone and their dog knows Ukraine would have ended the war long before now without imperialist intervention.  And we get the apologetics for the prominent role of fascism by saying that they really only get a small vote, which reminds me of all the loyalist paramilitaries in the north of Ireland who don’t bother to vote for they own political fronts but for the DUP because this mainstream party adequately reflects their reactionary views.  In this, as in so much else, the pro-war left is protected by the bourgeois media, which censors the many indicators of fascist sympathies within the Ukrainian armed forces, and regurgitates the moral outrage that feeds the war and imperialist interests.

Back to part 1

Forward to part 3

Debating the war (1 of 3) – imperialism defending the workers?

Posted on by
6
‘We are Making a New World’: The fields of World War I. Copyright: © IWM. Original Source: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/20070

Over on the Tendance Coatesy blog a debate on the war has been taking place.  After over 90 comments Andrew, the host, made a short comment that finished with:

‘The whole thing is simple: they invaded. They are wrong. We should do everything to stand with Ukraine.’

So there you go. The whole argument that supporting ‘Ukraine’ does not follow inescapably from opposing the Russian invasion has passed Andrew by.  The argument about why the invasion took place, its causes, results and consequences are ignored.

What is this ‘Ukraine’ we are asked to support, and should workers support capitalist states, are questions likewise ignored, as is why the imperative to support ‘Ukraine’ also requires support for intervention by western imperialism.

Why are they wrong?  What is the harm caused and what use, if any, does Marxism have in determining this, and setting out what should be done about it?  Is there any class analysis that would distinguish our determining what is wrong from the wall to wall blitz of the capitalist media and its nauseating hypocrisy?  Or is it really so ‘simple’ that there are no differences between the socialist view and the propaganda of Western capitalism, so that supporting ‘Ukraine’ is so simple a thing that it requires no interrogation?

All these questions are avoided by ignoring the debate in the previous 90 odd comments; but the attempt to simplify things fails because it is simply a device for avoidance.  Like the bourgeois media it attempts to compel us to forget how we got here, the nature of the warring parties and their objectives; leaving us with the impression that the consequences of supporting the Ukrainian state and western imperialism will be their claims to bring about ‘freedom’.  As I have repeatedly pointed out: only one fact matters for those who proclaim support for ‘Ukraine’–there has been an invasion and we should oppose it beside everyone else who does.

One other contributor, Jim Denham, shows no fear in stating more clearly what this means in political terms, in the process showing that the emperor is naked and certainly wearing no socialist arguments.  In a comment, I accused him of believing that ‘the Ukrainian capitalist state and imperialism are defending the Ukrainian working class”.  To which he replies – “OF COURSE they effin’ well are – for their own reasons – right now. WE warn that this will not last, but the Ukranian workers are right to make use of it. What sort of fantasy world do you live in?”

Well, to answer his last point first–the sort of fantasy world in which capitalist states and imperialism doesn’t defend the working class but sends it out to fight and die on their behalf. To believe that on this question, in the midst of the largest war since 1945, involving dozens of countries and threatening to escalate into a world conflagration; that in these circumstances imperialism is defending the working class of the world is not simply very unlikely, it is impossible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but there’s been plenty of the former and a dearth of the latter.

It is always admitted that western imperialism is doing the right thing for its ‘own reasons’ but its supporters who think that the stars of imperialism and the working class have simply aligned are like believers in astrology who divine from this alignment that everything will be alright.  They don’t say what these interests of imperialism are; in other words, they don’t say what imperialism will do if it wins. Nor do they allow into their consciousness the reality that victory for imperialism will mean it will be free to enjoy the fruits of its victory, achieve its purposes, satisfy its ‘reasons’, and impose its interests.

The idea that the Ukrainian working class, which is not even independently politically organised, would, upon ‘victory’, then drop its support for the Ukrainian capitalist state and shed its nationalism is too ludicrous to believe; which is why it is never explained how it would happen.  The war and the support for it is already being employed to destroy general democratic rights, workers rights, and impose privatisation and austerity.  War is sending thousands upon thousands of working class Ukrainians to their deaths, and opposition to all this can only come from opposing it.  In this, they will face the opposition of the western pro-war Left, for whom nothing is more important, and everything is subordinated to, the ‘simple’ task of helping Ukraine win the war.

So, if imperialism was victorious, as this pro-war Left earnestly desires, what would the results be?  What reason is it fighting that apparently can accommodate, and not conflict with, the interests of the working class?

This is easy to answer, because we have history to guide us and US imperialism has been quite open about why it is spending so much money supporting Ukraine–“because Russians are dying . . . the best money we’ve spent”.  Defeat for Russia would bring forward regime change that would allow the placing of another Yeltsin stooge and subordination of Russia to western imperialism.  It would reintroduce the shock therapy that previously devastated the country, causing catastrophic levels of poverty and reduced life expectancy.

In Ukraine it would boost western imperialist interests and continue the subordination of the country that had suffered, by 2021, a reduction in Gross Domestic Product of 38 per cent from the 1990 level, when the country became independent.  This calamitous fall compares with a corresponding increase for world GDP of 75 per cent; so by 2021 the per capita GDP of Ukraine was roughly equal to that of Paraguay, Guatemala and Indonesia.

It would then mean that the real target of imperialism–China–would be surrounded and more easily isolated and vulnerable to the subordination that Russia had previously suffered and would suffer again in defeat.  All this would mean the continuation of war and devastation of the lives of the millions affected.

Opposition to this imperialist project owes nothing to sympathy or solidarity with the Russian or Chinese capitalist states but to the working classes of both countries, to the workers of others who would also suffer from the subordination of their countries, and the working class within the western imperialist countries who would be tied more firmly to their own exploitation, with the suppression of freedom that comes from imperialist oppression abroad.

Opposition to the imperialist intervention in Ukraine is not therefore on behalf of the Ukrainian state, or the Russian state, or the Chinese state.  It is for the working class of each of these countries, providing a basis for their future unity. Support for war can only promote their division.

Karl Marx, in the Communist Manifesto, argued that  ‘Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement.’ 

The momentary interests of the working class require an end to the war, while taking care of the future requires we don’t cheerlead imperialism.

But if none of this matters, if matters are simple, and if the workers of the world can rely on imperialism until perhaps they can’t, then knock yourself out and support ‘Ukraine’.

Forward to part 2

The war in Ukraine (14) – for a democratic Ukraine?

Posted on by
3

The Irish TD Paul Murphy describes Ukraine as ‘a capitalist democracy’ while the Fourth International (FI) declares that ‘Ukraine is an independent country which has preserved a regime of formal democracy. Russia has an authoritarian, repressive parliamentary system with far-right members in the Duma.’

We will ignore the significant role of fascism in Ukraine for the moment, covered up by the western media and whitewashed by the pro-war Left, while we have already noted the similarity of the political regimes in both countries.  Most importantly, we will postpone further consideration of the claimed imperative for socialists to rally to the defence of ‘democratic’ capitalist states in war, except to note that this blog is written from the north of Ireland, a part of the territory of the United Kingdom, widely regarded, and not inaccurately, as one of the premier bourgeois democracies.

During my lifetime this ‘democratic’ state has imprisoned hundreds of suspected political opponents without trial for several years while torturing a number of them.  Its armed forces have opened fire and murdered 14 peaceful civil rights demonstrators and organised right wing terrorist groups to kill political opponents, the families of political opponents and random members of the communities within which they lived.  Leon Trotsky warned against support for ‘democratic’ capitalist sates in war against their enemies as they can easily put on another mask, and it’s one reason socialists determine their position in capitalist wars not on democratic forms but on the essential class nature of the state.

Ukraine is supported by the UK, which places itself to the vanguard of supplying weapons to Ukraine.  This should immediately have rung alarm bells among British socialists that the state they sometimes claim to oppose is such a prominent supporter of the Ukrainian cause.  Britain has taken part in 83 military interventions around the world since 1945, including Kenya, Malaya, Egypt, Iraq and Libya etc. etc. According to a study reported by the New York Times on 17 February 2018, the US government ran 81 ‘overt and covert election influence operations’ in foreign countries from 1946 to 2000’ while Soviet and post-Soviet Russia ran 36 during this time.  Does the pro-Ukraine left really believe that the intervention of the UK and US in Ukraine is uniquely progressive because the Russian is uniquely reactionary?

Russia is dammed for its authoritarian regime and its brutal aggression.  But who introduced the singularly powerful Presidential system into Russia in the first place and who did not object to its first incumbent shelling the Russian parliament in October 1993 as that parliament was dissolved?  It was Boris Yeltsin that arrogated power to the President and who the United States supported in help rig subsequent elections in 1996, as we have noted before.  Russian brutal aggression in Chechnya in 1994-96 was ignored when carried out by Yeltsin, with the US supporting his re-election while the war continued.

So much for the democratic credentials of Western imperialist powers and their opposition to Russian authoritarianism and aggression!  The pro-Ukraine left attempt to separate their support for Ukraine from the Western imperialist intervention, but we have already noted the identity of their political justifications.  This Left not only explicitly refuses to oppose Western imperialist intervention, so cannot even disassociate itself from their own ruling classes hypocritically, but actually supports its armed intervention. The well-known history of western imperialism is simply ignored and given no significance, and many of the posts in this series have pointed out how preposterous this is.  But what of Ukraine itself?

Over a number of posts we have pointed to the corruption of political life in Ukraine, both at the level of the centralised state and the daily corruption faced by many of its citizens, reflected in a number of indices of the low level of (bourgeois) democracy published by Western sources.  There is no justification for the view that any of this warrants defence or support for the Ukrainian state or all the apologetics for it that the pro-war left has indulged in, even were the fundamental capitalist character of the state to be wrongly ignored.

This does not mean that the political systems in Ukraine and Russia are exactly the same, although war has made both more repressive.  The state in Russia has stood over its various oligarchs, protecting its ill-gotten gains in general, while in Ukraine the various oligarchs have competed for ‘ownership’ of the state machinery so that they can protect and expand their particular interests.  While the latter has appeared to lead to more political competition, with the outward signs of bourgeois democracy as practised in western Europe, this competition has been determined by oligarchic factions and by the growing political division between those looking west and those looking towards Russia.

The eruption of mass protests in Ukraine, particularly the Orange ‘revolution’ in 2004 and Euromaidan in 2014, have been hailed as demonstrating widespread political participation and imposition of popular sovereignty in a way that the less frequent or significant events in Russia, such as the protests against electoral malpractice between 2011 and 2013, have not.  This has been accentuated by regular electoral reversals to the incumbent President in Ukraine as opposed to the long reign of Vladimir Putin.

In fact, these developments are illustrations of the weakness and limits of popular mobilisation and the continuing power of the oligarchs throughout all these upheavals. It is they who have alternated in office, often sponsored protests and benefited from them, and who have, for example, created their own private armies to make up for the weakness of the Ukrainian state in defending their interests.  The western media is full of forecasts that the strengthening of the Ukrainian state in the war will lead to the impartial rule of law and reduction of corruption, but the incorporation of fascist units into the armed forces and the continuation of corruption in the middle of war give the lie to their rosy predictions.

So, the ‘Orange revolution’ in 2004 against corruption led to a new even more corrupt regime while the liberal support for democracy and the EU in the Maidan protests in 2013-2014 led to another oligarchic government, even containing some fascists, with Its Prime minister hand-picked by the United States. This governmnet brought the country closer to NATO despite the opposition of many ordinary Ukrainians, so that the end result was the unconstitutional overthrow of one rotten government and replacement by another that quickly became even more unpopular than the one it replaced.

In other words, the Ukrainian state and the political regimes that have presided over it have not been expressions of the popular will, with the current regime walking the country into a war having been elected to deliver peace.  The country is now irretrievably divided, yet the only response from the Zelensky regime is further anti-Russian nationalism that signals the determination to deepen the division.  Much of the pro-Ukrainian left has endorsed this with the camouflage of ‘decolonisation’, as if ethno-nationalism is something progressive, demonstrating that when the rot sets in it spreads.

Time after time the Ukrainian people voted and protested against the corruption of their state and the direction it has taken society only for these to continue under a new form and new regime. By 2019 a Gallup poll had recorded that just 9 per cent of the citizens of the country had confidence in governmental agencies, the lowest level of trust in the world. Yet this is the state that, with help from a Russian invasion, workers in Ukraine are compelled to fight for while the pro-war left in the West supports its arming to the teeth by Western imperialism. The old and disreputable lie that war will purify the country is peddled again by the bourgeoise and imperialism and once again wide sections of the Left have swallowed it whole.

In Ukraine virulent nationalism has been mobilised to cover up for the repeated failure of successive regimes to deliver on their promises, with war always the most extreme way of achieving this and often successful, at least in the short term.  The ignorant misuse of the policy of self-determination of nations argued by Lenin has been brandished by some of the western left so that it effectively joins in the defence of this rotten nationalism and the capitalist state it vindicates.

Some supporters of the British section of this movement have recently taken to boasting of their success in uniting disparate forces on the left in support of this policy but they are really far too modest, for their alliance stretches way beyond the ranks of small left groups and left social democrats. It includes the whole Starmer Labour Party, prominent ex-left supporters of NATO such as Paul Mason, and more importantly–all the western capitalist states and their bourgeois political leaderships.  For the purposes of any alternative to these capitalist states and these leaderships they are worse than useless. The rot will kill.

Back to part 13

Forward to part 15

The local elections – another step to a united Ireland?

Posted on by
1

The local election results in the North of Ireland have given rise to more commentary that another step has been taken towards a referendum on Irish unity and a united Ireland.  The success of Sinn Fein in becoming the largest party at local government level in council seats and votes has provoked this reaction, as have its previous victories.  The two have almost come to seem synonymous.

At the same time the two are repeatedly separated by the selfsame commentators who argue that any vote for a united Ireland in a referendum would have to go way beyond Sinn Fein’s support.  If a vote for this party is an indicator of impending unity, then there is an obvious problem.  Its vote in the local elections was 30.9 percent of the ballot so even after an increase in its support of 7.7 percent it is not yet a third of those voting.

It is argued that other pro-unity candidates add to the forward movement of Irish nationalism, except that the other major nationalist party, the SDLP, is slowly dying.  Its vote fell by 3.3 percentage points to 8.7 per cent.  Together the two major nationalist parties gathered 39.7 per cent.  Even with the addition of the pro-unity parties on the left and right, People before Profit and Aontú, the total rises only to 41.5 per cent.  The total for the three main unionist parties is 38.1 per cent; Irish nationalism gained more votes than the these parties.

In the 2019 local government election the three Unionist parties plus smaller unionists gained 41.87 per cent of the vote while the comparable Irish nationalist and pro-unity parties won 37.73 per cent.  At this election the DUP was the largest party and the Unionist vote was higher than that of Irish nationalism.

Local elections, however, are the least accurate electoral indicator of the relative strengths of the two camps; the turnout in 2023 was only 54 per cent, an increase of 2 per cent on the 2019 vote.  Commentators have noted that the turnout in 2023 was higher in predominantly nationalist than unionist areas by as much as 10 percentage points in some places. Irish nationalism therefore won only 22 per cent of the electorate while many unionist voters stayed at home. During any referendum on a united Ireland it can hardly be expected that unionists will be so apathetic or demoralised, unless political circumstances make them so, unlikely to be a result of the vote itself.

In the 2022 Assembly elections, where the turnout was almost 63.6 per cent, the vote for the three Unionist parties was 40.1 per cent while the pro-Irish unity vote comparable to the most recent local elections was 40.7 per cent.  The recent local election results are not the first time the Unionist parties have fallen behind.

Twelve years ago in the 2011 Assembly elections, Unionism polled 47.65 per cent while Irish nationalism trailed behind at 42.81 per cent.  The decline in the Unionist vote over these years is therefore clear and it is this decline that has provided most of the impetus to claims that a nationalist referendum victory is a realistic prospect in the short to medium term.  The 2011 result however also reveals what the advance of Sinn Fein has hidden – that the nationalist share of the vote hasn’t increased:  42.81 per cent in 2011 and 41.5 per cent in 2023.

The missing piece of the jigsaw is the rise of the Alliance party: from 7.84 per cent in 2011 to  13.3 per cent in the recent local election.  The question then becomes the political nature of this party – unionist with a ‘small u’ or nationalist; or what it presents itself as – simply ‘other’.

So let’s start with the third alternative–that Alliance cannot be said to have a position on the national question.  Even if this were so the national question will face Alliance and its supporters with the choice sooner or later and ‘other’ will not be on the ballot paper.

Alliance is definitely not an Irish nationalist party, does not pretend to be or pretend to hide it, and while it has a significant Catholic support, this has consciously decided not to vote for Irish nationalism.  While it may be more likely than other Alliance supporters to vote for unity in a referendum, its existing vote is for the status quo and the status quo is continued British rule.

The party was originally set up as an openly unionist party that presented itself as non-sectarian; one that divorced its unionism from any religious identity.  It has moved from this to present itself as neither Unionist nor nationalist but with a soft, ‘small u’, unionist support that is repelled by the sectarianism of the Unionist mainstream, with many also rejecting Brexit.  In a referendum, all other things being equal, the majority of Alliance voters can be expected to support continued British rule, as will the party itself. 

The ’other things being equal’ is what will matter for many; the political circumstances will at some point be decisive.  These include the reality of what a united Ireland might offer and the configuration of the forces fighting for and against it.  This includes the approach of the British state and the extent of violent unionist opposition.  What the election results demonstrate is that this point is not yet near, whatever about Sinn Fein becoming the largest party and Irish nationalism garnering more votes than ‘big U’ Unionism.  This does not mean that nothing is really changing.

Unionism continues to decline.  Its support for Brexit and rejection of the deal negotiated by the British state with the EU indicates a political movement fighting against its own interests. These are still considered to include a sectarian supremacy that is no longer possible and opposition to economic forces that might make the Northern State more attractive, even while it strengthens the all-island character of potential economic prosperity.  No longer able to make its claims on the basis that it is the majority within the gerrymandered state, it simply declares its veto based on its own existence.  This existence has always been one of sectarian privilege.

The other significant change has been within Irish republicanism, which having ditched its armed struggle against British rule has found itself with no clothes it cannot discard.  From opposition to British imperialism it now stands foursquare behind the western imperialist  proxy war in Ukraine.  Its representatives have acclaimed its recent success as a result of its brilliant electoral campaign.  This put a united Ireland on the back-burner but purposively elevated its attendance at the British king’s coronation, ‘to show their respect’.

It seems not to occur to them that monarchy is the epitome of denial of democracy and deserves zero respect. When Celtic and Liverpool football fans demonstrate a higher level of awareness of very basic democratic and republican principles we can appreciate the level to which Sinn Fein has sunk (with all due respect to those fans).

If this seems a rather glib or flippant remark, we can recall the explanation by another Sinn Fein member who stated that its approach was anticipation of the mutually respectful attitude between an independent Ireland and Britain when it was united.  We are almost back to the original Arthur Griffith Sinn Fein that supported a Habsburg Empire-like dual monarchy.

What this illustrates is the relevance of the Marxist theory and programme of permanent revolution. This argues that the democratic tasks associated with the development of capitalism, such as national independence, should be part of a working class programme and struggle and that it was possible for this struggle to develop into one that went beyond purely democratic questions, and the limits acceptable to capitalism, to be a struggle for working class rule.

This does not mean that such struggles cannot be led by other classes, but that these could not be relied upon to advance the struggle in a thoroughly democratic way or for a consistent and comprehensive democratic outcome.  It matters who leads the struggle, because different classes will lead it to very different ends.

Marxists always defined Sinn Fein as a petty bourgeois organisation, which drew a reaction of complete incomprehension from republicans who were working class and living in solidly working class estates in Belfast, Derry or Dublin.  However, the movement’s political character was defined not mainly by its support considered in sociological terms, including its rural support or its ties to Irish American money, but by its politics.

This politics previously imagined a radically reconfigured capitalism, which the capitalist class opposed, while not seeking to overthrown the system itself, never mind forwarding real working class rule. The Irish capitalist class had no great interest in challenging British imperialism and the Irish working class has interests that go way beyond a united country that cannot provide for its needs.

As the possibility of a united Ireland is claimed to be approaching the democratic content to the struggle is more and more denuded of democratic content.  The obsequious kowtowing to British royalty does indeed show respect but not to democratic and republican principles.  The various scattered proposals to accommodate unionism in a united Ireland are also indicators of the inconsistent approach to a democratic outcome.

Many European countries have achieved unification after the defeat of the popular revolutions that sought to enact it in a more democratic way, such as Germany and Italy.  For socialists support for a united Ireland is a struggle to advance beyond a partitioned Ireland and not one that leaves every other component and trappings of the Irish and British capitalist states intact.

When measured against these tasks, the local government elections in 2023 are not even a minor tremble in the ground beneath the system that must be brought down.

The war in Ukraine (13) – the unity for democracy

Posted on by
Reply
Extraordinary Summit of NATO Heads of State and Government held in Brussels, Belgium on March 24, 2022. (Photo by NATO Pool/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

In the previous post we repeated an earlier review of two of the many indices of democracy in the world and the ranking of Russia and Ukraine.  These indices are, of course, ideological constructs that compare the real world with a bourgeois ideal that excludes what Marxists consider real human freedom. For these bourgeois indices freedom includes ‘economic freedom’, which Marx described as the freedom to exploit.  The freedom to own capital is also the freedom to exclude ownership to the vast majority, which without their own capital have to work for those that do, and without which those that do have capital would be able to do nothing with it.  A society in which the working class collectively owns and controls the means of production and has ended private capitalist ownership does not exist but would be one that would really be on the road to freedom.

There is therefore no point to a Marxist index that reported that in no country does the mass of the people, especially the working class, control its own destiny and impose its own will through its economic and social power, with whatever state organisation is still required to defend its collective ownership of the productive powers of society.  The left supporters of Ukraine however claim that there is something qualitatively different to ‘democracy’ in Ukraine in comparison to ‘authoritarianism’ in Russia.  The indices that we have quoted are simply a demonstration that there isn’t.

The point is not only that both are capitalist societies defended by capitalist states, which is the difference that socialists consider determinant, but that there is little difference between them in terms of the functioning of bourgeois democracy.  For socialists such democracy is mainly of value in order for the working class to develop its political consciousness and its organisation more freely.  For the pro-war left this is irrelevant, for while it complains about the attacks on workers’ rights and organisation by the Zelensky regime it nevertheless defends this regime and the state it sits upon. It betrays the cause of the working class at both the level of principle and immediate practice.

Its rationale for this has been argued against repeatedly on this blog, as we have noted the identity of its argument to that of the western capitalist powers, recited endlessly by their state and corporate media.  We see this again with a third index of ‘democracy.’ 

This third index is that of The Economist Intelligence Unit, which reported in its 2021 index that ‘Ukraine’s score declined from 5.81 in 2020 to 5.57 in 2021, taking it further below the threshold of 6.00, above which countries are classified as a “flawed democracy”. Russia’s score, already a lowly 3.31 in 2020, fell further to 3.24 in 2021.’  This meant that Ukraine was 86 out of 167 countries while Russia came in at 124.  The report stated that ‘Ukraine’s score registered the steepest decline among the four east European countries in this category’, (Hybrid regimes in Eastern Europe), and ‘declined in part as a result of increased tensions with Russia. Government functioning under a direct military threat usually restricts democratic processes in favour of the centralisation of power in the hands of the executive and the security or military apparatus with the aim of guaranteeing public safety. In Ukraine, the military played a more prominent role in 2021 and exerted more influence over political decision-making; government policy also became less transparent.’ In the 2022 report Ukraine has dropped only one place to 87 out of 167 countries while Russia falls to 146 place from 124.

’The Economist’ is a virulently opinionated ‘newspaper’ that champions capitalism and Western imperialist ‘values’ so its rationale for its open support for Ukraine is striking for its more or less perfect alignment with the justification of support for Ukraine by the pro-war left.  One is almost tempted to say that one of them hasn’t quite understood what is going on, but it is too easy to identity the mistaken party.

’The Economist’ reports that ‘Ukraine’s score in the 2022 Democracy Index declines compared with 2021, from 5.57 to 5.42. . . . Despite the overall decline in Ukraine’s Democracy Index score in 2022, there were also many positive developments, not least in the way in which the war has given rise to a sense of nationhood and national solidarity. Ukraine’s resistance to the Russian invasion is a demonstration of how ordinary people are prepared to fight to defend the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination.’  

It goes on to say that ‘Russia’s invasion led to a strong “rally-around-the-flag” effect, after which trust in the country’s president, government and armed forces surged to all-time highs. Citizens’ engagement with politics and the news also increased. In response to the invasion, the Ukrainian government imposed martial law, which curtailed freedom of movement and placed sweeping emergency powers in the hands of the president, Volodymyr Zelenskyi. Checks and balances on Mr Zelenskyi’s authority were effectively suspended as normal political processes assumed a lower priority in the face of an existential external threat. The banning of pro-Russian political parties, such as Opposition Platform—For Life, as well as media outlets reporting pro-Russian views, is understandable in the context of the invasion and amid Ukraine’s attempts to consolidate and defend its national identity.’

‘However, in fighting a war that is widely understood to be existential, Ukraine’s leaders have sometimes curtailed the rights and freedoms of citizens, political parties and the media. Much of this is par for the course in wartime, but such extraordinary measures have inevitably resulted in downgrades in various indicators in the Democracy Index.’

‘The Economist’ index thus reports the continuing reduction in democracy with more sorrow than anger and reduces its impact on Ukraine’s overall score by increasing the score of the sub-category of ‘political participation’, which is not actually independent popular action but, as it says, a “rally-around-the-flag” mobilisation that subordinates the Ukrainian working class to its state.  That much of this has been voluntary simply emphasises the subservience.  It is no accident that this ‘political participation’ has been enthusiastically supported by the pro-war left as an example of working class mobilisation, another indication that it cannot distinguish between the power of the Ukrainian state and the power of the Ukrainian working class.

On one thing the magazine may appear obviously correct: ‘Every so often in history something happens that requires people to take sides as a matter of principle. In 2022 Russia’s invasion of Ukraine posed such a choice.’  The pro-war left has demonstrated that it agrees that it must ‘take sides’.

Boffy has ridiculed this idea, as if we must accept one of the alternatives presented by capitalism and the competition between its rival states; but the pro-war left has accepted this choice and in doing so has accepted the principles advanced by one of the alternatives, in its case the policy of the Western capitalist powers.  So, just like this pro-war left, ‘The Economist’ champions the centrality of ‘self-determination’, ironically also asserted by Russia and China in their own singing of the praises of national sovereignty: ‘Sovereignty and democracy are indivisible. Ukraine’s fight to defend its sovereignty has drawn attention to the importance of a principle that has been much denigrated . . .’

It then goes on to note, with total lack of self-awareness, that ‘Ukraine’s elections were marred by substantial irregularities that prevented them from being free and fair. There were serious constitutional flaws, with power being concentrated in the presidency rather than the legislature. The judiciary was far from being independent. Corruption was rife under a system dominated by oligarchs, who exercised huge influence over the main institutions of power. There was a pluralist media, but many outlets were owned by wealthy businessmen or controlled by vested interests. Public trust in government, political parties and the electoral process was very low.’

This however is blamed mainly on the influence of Russia, with the wishful thinking claim that the war ‘may have provided the shock that will ensure no return to the status quo ante in Ukraine. Russia’s war of aggression has raised the level of national consciousness and will amplify expectations of change afterwards.’

In fact, the opposite has already been the case, with nationalist radicalisation after 2014 being used as cover for the lack of economic and social progress and thorough democratisation.  Instead, national consciousness has amplified the worst parts of Ukraine’s past with its celebration of fascist predecessors who now play the most honoured role in Ukraine’s new nationalist revival.  Just like the pro-war left, this far-right is accorded no importance and the growth of nationalism celebrated.  Ethnic nationalism is endorsed through steps to erase Russian culture and define what is really Ukrainian, given a gloss on the left through stupid or dishonest claims that this is some sort of progressive decolonial project.

The pro-war left has therefore no essential difference with the ideological standard bearer of capitalism when the latter declares its verdict that:

‘Nothing that the Western powers did forced Russia to go to war in Ukraine. Russia had in late 2021 listed its grievances and concerns about NATO expansion, arms control and other matters, and the US’s door remained open for further discussion and diplomacy. The US made clear that it was ready to pursue negotiations with Russia. That Russia went to war in Ukraine is all down to the Kremlin.’

This Left holds this same view because its political conceptions are based on the same vacuous moralistic grounds declared by ‘The Economist’, which can be filled with whatever reactionary content is currently prevalent:

‘Democracy is a moral system as well as a system of government, and it is moral in the sense that it expresses an attitude towards people. The basic moral premise of democracy is the idea that all people are equal. Democracy is made for people, not the people for democracy.  From the idea of the equality of people follows the idea of the equality of nations: the principle of national sovereignty also has a moral dimension and is a bedrock of democracy.’ 

In expressing these political conceptions ‘The Economist’ faithfully grounds itself on the class interests of Western capitalism and can really only be charged with hypocrisy.  On the other hand, in basing itself on the same moral arguments and resulting political positions, the pro-war left betrays the class interests of those it claims to represent.

Back to part 12

Forward to part 14

The war in Ukraine (12) – democracy and authoritarianism?

Posted on by
3

The war is supported by the Western powers, its media and its pro-war left, and justified as a war of democracy against authoritarianism.  In several Facebook debates I engaged in with this left a version of Godwin’s law kicked in quite quickly as Russia was denounced as fascist, and everyone knows you can’t support fascism.  It appears that the logic is that you must then support Ukraine.  And if it turns out that supporting Ukraine also involves support for their significant fascist armed units, well, these apparently aren’t significant enough to matter.

None of this prevents the supporters of Ukraine also claiming that support for Ukrainian self-determination doesn’t depend on the nature of its regime!  The supporters of Russia take very much the same approach, on the grounds that US imperialism is the main enemy.  The nature of the Putin regime is entirely secondary to their support for a multi-polar world, although that did not really work out very well in the last century; particularly between the years 1914 to 1918 and 1939 to 1945, never mind the numerous smaller wars that have continued over the past number of decades.

Any attempt to present Russia as any sort of democracy, as supporters of Ukraine have pretended with their favourite capitalist state, faces the difficulty that Western propaganda has enough raw material to advance the case that it isn’t.  For a capitalist country Russia is not a very democratic bourgeois democracy; ‘The Economist’ magazine democracy index classifies it as ‘authoritarian’ while Ukraine is classified as a ‘hybrid regime,’ which sits below the categories of ‘democracy’ and ‘flawed democracy’.

One way the lack of democracy reveals itself is at ground level, where it impacts most on the most vulnerable, who became even more economically insecure because of the mass privatisations following the fall of the Soviet Union. This left many people more dependent on local political and economic elites, who were often the same people.  These elites were then able to engage in vote buying and coerced participation in demonstrations in support of favoured candidates etc., achieved through threats to the payment of wages; threats of unemployment; and threats to access to benefits, health and education services and to infrastructure, for example to gas supplies and public transport.

In areas with large facilities such as factories, agricultural enterprises, hospitals and schools and universities, political officials could demand political support from their workers and even relatives, with the open or veiled threat that the factory might close, the hospital staff might lose their jobs, or the school might not get the funds to maintain ageing infrastructure etc.  In one region the intervention of local officials had become so reliable and acute that in 2017 upon the expected visit of such officials on the first day of school the parents formally begged that the visit might happen on the second day.

In rural areas targeting voters has been carried out on a more individualistic basis with what might appear relatively minor figures wielding significant influence, often under pressure themselves, and so on up the tree of vertical command.  In one village, the mayor’s secretary worked on her homestead while also having a second job.  In her secretarial role she had lists of young men eligible for drafting into the army, which many avoided through payment at a widely known price.  This price went up from 200 in 2010 to 1,000 in 2019, although because of currency devaluation there was actually no significant increase.  During the war however the price shot up ten or twelve times the normal level.  During an electoral campaign this power could be put to good use to ensure a high turnout, with the implication that if you didn’t participate “we’ll take your son into the army.”  In small towns and villages, the political operatives would seek to ensure their instructions were followed by demanding that people bring their mobile phones and take a picture of their ballot paper.

These threats to withhold rights and benefits, which should be entitlements but became privileges, could be withheld if votes were not cast as required. Achieving compliance became easier using state resources, including databases of those receiving a pension or other government assistance. State employees were expected to see themselves as working for the current political leadership.  When one chief physician at a district hospital, whose wife was head midwife, was challenged by activists over his wife’s poor record in new-born mortality and his vote buying, he replied “I am not a public servant! I am not a public servant!”

While this is how political corruption operates at the lower level, it could not work so easily on those with some personal independence and therefore not so vulnerable, or with those so poor they might have nothing to lose.  At a higher level, political support has been wrought through increasing nationalism, which conveniently would play the role of diverting attention from the economic and social conditions that facilitated such corrupt political practices in the first place.

These individual stories and description of the general landscape of corruption are taken from a book ‘Staging Democracy, political performance in Ukraine, Russia and beyond’.  The author states that ‘Russia and Ukraine are widely viewed as occupying different places in regime-type taxonomies.  Yet key instruments of explicit political manipulation and control over most people’s everyday lives, if not the frequency of their use, are similar in the two countries.’  The examples quoted are all from Ukraine.

 *                    *                   *

In a previous post I noted the narrow differences in the political complexion of Ukraine and Russia:

‘The right wing US think-tank The CATO Institute has an annual ‘Human Freedom’ index, a combination of separate indices for personal and economic freedom.  Its 2021 report shows that Ukraine is the third worst country out of 22 in Eastern Europe while the Russian Federation is the worst.  Over 165 countries Ukraine is number 98 while Russia is 126.  The freest country at number 1 is Switzerland, which scores 9.11 for human freedom while Ukraine scores 6.86 (75% of the Swiss score) and Russia scores 6.23 (or 68% of the Swiss score).  We are expected to support the war of Ukraine with 75% of the ‘human freedom’ of the freest against Russia with 68%.  The war of 7%. It is relevant to note that while in 2021 Ukraine ranked 98th, it ranked higher at 82nd in 2008, so that relatively it has gotten worse, but so has Russia from 112th to 126th.’

‘The second index is that of ‘Transparency International’ which reports the perceived levels of public sector corruption in 180 countries/territories around the world. It scores these countries out of 100, with the lower the score the more corrupt a country is perceived to be.  The 2021 publication reports that the least corrupt countries included Denmark, Finland and New Zealand, scoring 88 each.  Ukraine is 123rd on the list while Russia is 139th. A better indication of the difference is that Ukraine scores 32 out of 100 while Russia scores 29, meaning that the former scores 36% of Denmark etc. while Russia scores 33%.  Not a pile of difference; 3 to be exact.’

In both countries the degree of political freedom has shrunk even further over the past year, at exactly the same time some from the pro-war Left have invited us to support one or the other capitalist state. While socialists should not do so in peacetime, we have even less reason to do so in war.

Back to part 11

Forward to part 13