Yesterday, the media reported that Russian fighter jets had downed a US Predator in The Black Sea. Whether it was a Predator, given that the USAF retired it in 2018, or a Reaper that replaced it at that time, is not clear. Either way, although the US, and western media have emphasised it as being a “spy drone”, both have offensive weapons capability, and have been used by the US military and CIA in an offensive capacity in Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere. The US has emphasised that it was in “international waters”, but those waters, i.e. the Black Sea, are thousands of miles away from the US, and its borders, but immediately adjacent to Russia. Contrast its attitude to it shooting down a Chinese weather balloon recently. The incident exposes the fallacy of some of the arguments put by social-imperialists recently, and the path to global imperialist war now set. In fact, as I wrote some time ago, that path was set at least at the time that the US decided to deploy forces in Syria, a war arena where Russian troops were already actively deployed.
The social-imperialists have argued that the war between Russia and Ukraine, began only at the point of Russia's invasion, or even at the point of the unilateral declarations of independence by the Eastern republics in 2014, following the US inspired coup in Kyiv. Such superficiality is common amongst liberals, moral socialists, and social imperialists, for whom the causes of war are only to be looked for in “who fired the first shot”, for whom they can always find reason to support their own chosen camp. On this basis, they argue that, whatever intentions NATO imperialism might have for sending billions of Dollars of weapons to Ukraine, whatever its intentions in undertaking a massive economic war against Russia, and China and any other country that might dare to not join it in trying to isolate the former, that does not change the nature of the war in Ukraine, as a national war, and one that socialists should support. Both Lenin and Trotsky called such arguments by the social-imperialists “sophistry”.
The social imperialists argue that the war in Ukraine can only be seen as a war for national independence, despite the fact that Ukraine is already an independent capitalist state, closely tied into the system of western imperialism, and that arguments about this war escalating into an imperialist war have to be separated and discounted. Lenin and Trotsky disagreed with the social-imperialists of their day that made such arguments, based on sophistry.
There is a direct parallel, between Ukraine today, and Czechoslovakia in 1938. I have previously described, Trotsky's writings in that regard in his article Phrases and Reality. The basic message contained in it, is described in the title of another work by Trotsky at the time, New War Flows from Versailles Banditry, subtitled Trotsky Urges Firm Revolutionary Defeatist Policy as Only Way to Fight Hitlerism, which contains the same material. In it, Trotsky describes the events leading up to Germany's threats against Czecholsovakia, and demands for the “liberation” of the Sudeten Germans, as in no way being understandable just in terms of the current events, but having their roots in the defeat of Germany in WWI, and the conditions imposed on it via the Versailles Treaty.
The USSR similarly lost the Cold War in 1989, and its break up began immediately after it. In 1991, the victory of US imperialism over it was crowned when its puppet, Boris Yeltsin, became Russian President, and the process of privatising its economy, and introducing red in tooth and claw free market policies was introduced, under the auspices of an army of US economists, both Friedmanites, like Jeffrey Sachs, and Keynesians such as Steve Liesman.
Unlike most of Eastern and Central Europe, which was taken under the wing of the EU, Russia, including all of its Republics, such as Ukraine, was retained as the preserve of the US, which saw it as a new frontier, much as it had done the American West, in the 19th century. Indeed, much of what transpired had all of the hallmarks of that Wild West, and continues to bare the scars today. It offered the potential of vast cheap resources for the US, and its multinational companies, which is why, at that time, the US did not favour the separation of the republics such as Ukraine, in 1991, the further exploitation of which would have been much easier having the ability to pull the strings of Yeltsin in Moscow, rather than having to grease the palms of a whole string of regional politicians and bureaucrats.
Much as with the misery imposed on German workers by the Versailles Treaty, that created the conditions for the rise of Hitler, even worse misery was imposed on Russian workers and peasants, following the defeat of the USSR, and imposition of the terms by the US. It similarly, created the conditions for the rise of Putin. In the same way that Hitler, used the plight of oppressed German minorities in the countries created after WWI, so Putin has used the plight of oppressed Russian minorities in the vast array of former Russian Republics. The experience of Czechoslovakia is then of considerable interest.
In a further article, Social-Patriotic Sophistry, subtitled The Question of the Defense of Czechoslovakia’s “National Independence”
Trotsky wrote,
“DURING THE CRITICAL WEEK in September, we have been told, voices were heard even at the left flank of socialism maintaining that in case of “single combat” between Czechoslovakia and Germany, the proletariat should help Czechoslovakia and save its “national independence” even in alliance with Benes. This hypothetical case did not occur – the heroes of Czechoslovakian independence, as was to be expected, capitulated without a struggle. However, in the interests of the future we must here point out the grave and most dangerous mistake of three untimely theoreticians of “national independence.””
In this article, Trotsky dismantles all of the same arguments that today, the social-imperialists of the AWL/USC and others have raised in relation to the support for the “national independence of Ukraine”, in the current war. As the above reference to the former Czech President, the liberal, Benes, suggests, Trotsky also alludes to the Marxist principle that we only have a duty to support truly revolutionary forces in any national war, in accordance with the principles of the Theory of Permanent Revolution, and its application in the Theses On The National and Colonial Questions, a point that Trotsky had insisted upon during both the struggles against the Stalinists/Mensheviks during the Chinese Revolution, and during the Spanish Revolution.
What were these mistakes of these theoreticians of “national independence” that Trotsky refers to, and how do they compare to those of the social-imperialists today, who make the same mistakes in relation to Ukraine? Trotsky continues,
“Even irrespective of its international ties Czechoslovakia constitutes a thoroughly imperialist state. Economically, monopoly capitalism reigns there. Politically, the Czech bourgeoisie dominates (perhaps soon we will have to say, dominated!) several oppressed nationalities. Such a war, even on the part of isolated Czechoslovakia would thus have been carried on not for national independence but for the maintenance and if possible the extension of the borders of imperialist exploitation.”
Can anyone deny that these same descriptions apply to Ukraine. Indeed can the other camp of social imperialists that support Putin, using arguments that are a mirror image of those that support Ukraine, deny that this applies also to Russia. This argument about the use of sophistry in distinguishing national and imperialist wars, can also be traced back to Lenin, and his response to the Junius pamphlet, produced by Rosa Luxemburg.
Lenin in this work stresses the link between social-chauvinism and opportunism, which was at the root of the reason for the social chauvinists voting for war credits in WWI. For some of the social-imperialists that most ardently back the USC, such as Paul Mason, this is already openly manifest in their calls for support for NATO as an imperialist alliance, and for huge amounts of additional spending on modernising its weapons systems, in preparation for WWIII. But, many of those behind the USC have backed US and NATO imperialist interventions across the globe on the basis of “liberal intervention” over the last thirty years.
The social-chauvinists presented WWI, as a series of national wars, on the same basis that the USC today present the Russia-Ukraine War as a national war for Ukrainian independence. Both Luxemburg, and Lenin, point out that this was the case, but Lenin picks up Luxemburg for failing to recognise the possibility of national wars, still, in the era of imperialism. Of course, these national wars, such as for the liberation of colonies, were still possible, Lenin says, and the attitide of Marxists to them had been set out in a range of previous theses on the national and colonial questions, and the question of national self-determination.
Lenin notes,
“Junius is quite right in emphasising the decisive influence of the “imperialist background” of the present war, when he says that behind Serbia there is Russia, “behind Serbian nationalism there is Russian imperialism”; that even if a country like Holland took part in the present war, she too would be waging an imperialist war, because, firstly, Holland would be defending her colonies, and, secondly, she would be an ally of one of the imperialist coalitions. This is indisputable in relation to the present war. And when Junius lays particular emphasis on what to him is the most important point: the struggle against the “phantom of national war, which at present dominates Social-Democratic policy” (p. 81, Junius’ pamphlet), we cannot but agree that his reasoning is correct and quite appropriate.”
And, of course, the same could be said, today, in relation to the position of the USC – and equally the opposing capitalist camp of Putin supporters – whose arguments are based upon this same “phantom of national war”. In fact, compared to the time that Lenin was writing, here, and even that Trotsky was writing, into WWII, no such national wars are possible today, because the era of colonialism ended back in the 1970's. Talk of national war today, is simply cover for social-chauvinism to argue for “defence of the fatherland”, in relation to already existing, already independent, capitalist states, such as Ukraine, just as it was used by social-chauvinists during WWI, and II.
Lenin sets out that it is sophistry to deny any distinction between national and imperialist wars, on the basis that dialectics indicates that one can be transformed into the other, but as he sets out, that does not mean that, in any specific instance, that may be the case, and each case must be examined concretely in its specifics. Returning to the specifics of Czechoslovakia, in 1938, and its similarity to Ukraine, today, then, Trotsky continues,
“It is impermissible to consider a war between Czechoslovakia and Germany, even if other imperialist states were not immediately involved, outside of that entanglement of European and world imperialist relations from which the war might have broken out as an episode. A month or two later the Czech-German war – if the Czech bourgeoisie could fight and wanted to fight – would almost inevitably have involved other states. It would therefore be the greatest mistake for a Marxist to define his position on the basis of temporary conjunctural diplomatic and military groupings, rather than on the basis of the general character of the social forces standing behind the war.”
The USC, of course, have claimed that no such escalation of the war between Russia and Ukraine, is likely, and that, even if it were, it should not prevent the social imperialists risking global nuclear Armageddon for the sake of the limited bourgeois-democratic objective of Ukrainian national self-determination! Well, the fact that the US and NATO almost certainly has had covert forces employed in the war, including blowing up the Nordstream pipeline, which only the USC, now, seem to doubt, and probably painting targets to be hit by Ukrainian forces using, advanced weapons, provided by NATO, and the use of which is supervised by NATO advisors, just as they did for Saddam Hussein, in the use of WMD in their proxy war against Iran, and now has spilled over into Russia taking down this US drone, explodes the fallacy behind that line of argument.
Trotsky continues,
“We have repeated hundreds of times the priceless thesis of Clausewitz that war is but the continuation of politics by other means. In order to determine in each concrete case the historic and social character of the war we must be guided not by impressions and speculations but by a scientific analysis of the politics which preceded the war and determined it. These politics from the very first day of the creation of Czechoslovakia had an imperialist character.”
And, something almost identical could be said about Ukraine. He then takes on the argument of the social imperialists about a national war waged for the independence of Sudeten Germans from Czecholsovakia, supported by Germany, carrying over into an occupation of the whole of Czechoslovakia by Germany, which would then require socialists to support a national war by Czechoslovakia. That is identical to the current situation of Russia's support for the independence of Eastern Ukraine, Crimea and so on, and claims that it intends to occupy the whole of Ukraine, requiring socialists to then support a “national war” by Ukraine. Trotsky describes that argument again as sophistry.
“One can say that besides the partition of the Sudeten Germans, Hungarians, Poles, and possibly the Slovaks too, Hitler will not stop before the enslavement of the Czechs themselves and that in this case their struggle for independence will have every claim upon the support of the proletariat. To pose the question in this manner is nothing but social-patriotic sophistry. What concrete roads further development of imperialist antagonisms will take we do not know. Complete destruction of Czechoslovakia is possible, of course. But it is also possible that before this destruction will have been accomplished a European war will break out and Czechoslovakia will find itself on the side of the victors and participate in a new dismemberment of Germany. Is the role of a revolutionary party then that of nurse of the “victimized” gangsters of imperialism?”
In fact, whereas the conditions in 1938 made an occupation of Czechoslovakia likely, no such likelihood exists, today, in relation to Ukraine. Russia does not have the military capacity to do so, unless full scale imperialist war breaks out, and China brings its considerable resources to play behind Russia, which indeed is what current dynamics are leading towards, as NATO actions drive them together, but that is not what exists currently. Nor does Russia's previous actions in Georgia, and elsewhere suggest that such a course would be likely. Russia certainly has never mobilised the number of troops and weapons that would be required for such an annexation. The USC's position, in that regard is pure speculation that amounts to little more than pro-NATO propaganda. As Trotsky continues.
“It is absolutely clear that the proletariat must construct its policy on the basis of the given war as it is, i.e., as it has been determined by the whole preceding course of development and not on hypothetical speculation over a possible strategic result of the war. In such speculations everyone will inevitably choose that variant which corresponds best to his own desires, national sympathies and antipathies. It is clear that such a policy does not have a Marxist but a subjective, not an internationalist but a chauvinist character.”
And that sums up the opportunist, social imperialist nature of the USC position based upon moralism rather than Marxism.
“An imperialist war, no matter from what corner it begins, will be carried on not for “national independence” but for the division of the world in the interests of separate cliques of finance capital. This does not exclude that in passing the imperialist war could improve or worsen the condition of this or that “nation,” or, more exactly, of one nation at the expense of another. Thus, the Versailles peace treaty dismembered Germany. A new peace treaty may dismember France. Social-patriots utilize precisely this possible “national” danger of the future in order to support “their” imperialist bandits of the present. Czechoslovakia does not represent any exception from this role.”
And, the same applies to Ukraine, but also applies to the mirror image arguments put by the social-imperialists that defend Putin's Russia. It is quite true that all of NATO imperialism's actions, and known intentions involve trying to regain control over the vast resources of Russia they thought they had secured in the 1990's, with Yeltsin as their puppet, but that does not justify Putin's war, and is certainly no grounds for socialists backing Putin, any more than them backing Ukraine. To do so simply means socialists restricting themselves to making a moral choice as to which reactionary capitalist camp they want to support, rather than developing their own independent working-class perspective, based upon the principle that The Main Enemy is At Home, and a struggle for the self-determination of the working-class not of nations, on the basis of turning existing wars into class wars, i.e. of applying the principle of permanent revolution.
As Trotsky concludes,
“today we proceed not from the perspective of decline but from the perspective of revolution; we are defeatists at the expense of imperialists and not at the expense of the proletariat. We do not link the question of the fate of the Czechs, Belgians, French, and Germans as nations with conjunctural shifts on military fronts during a new brawl of the imperialists but with the uprising of the proletariat and its victory over all the imperialists. The program of the Fourth International states that the freedom of all European nations, both large and small, can be secured only within the frame of the Socialist United States of Europe. We look ahead and not backward!”
No comments:
Post a Comment