Social-Imperialism and Ukraine - Part 6 of 37

So, the reality is that no matter how much the war may be portrayed as being one simply of national self-determination, or national liberation (which is absurd because its already liberated, i.e. not annexed or a colony) the massive role of NATO imperialism, in providing the level of military support it is doing to the Ukrainian state, and its additional roles, at the same time as conducting a global economic war against Russia and China, determines the nature of the actual war taking place, as an inter-imperialist war, with Ukraine simply being the battlefield on which it is fought. We do not have a workers state, and nor do we have a truly revolutionary force engaged in such a struggle in Ukraine either.

If there were a truly independent, revolutionary force in Ukraine fighting a resistance struggle against Russia's invasion, then Marxists would support it, and if it were offered arms, even by NATO imperialism, we would be in favour of accepting them, just as, in 1917, we accepted the offer to transport Lenin by sealed train to Russia, by German imperialism. But, if there were such an independent truly revolutionary force fighting in Ukraine, what chance do you think there is that NATO imperialism really would be arming it??? The reality is none at all!. Its not necessary to agonise over the question, because history has already provided the answer.

In the 1930's, when the Popular Front Republican government in Spain was fighting not just Franco's fascists, but also Hitler's Nazis, and Mussolini's fascists sent to support them, the forces of “democratic imperialism”, led by the Popular Front government of Leon Blum, in France, pointedly refused to even sell that Republican government arms, let alone provide them free. Why? Because, although that Spanish Popular Front contained the shadow of the Spanish bourgeoisie, in the shape of liberal politicians, it also contained the centrist politicians of the Anarchist CNT (1.5 million members), POUM (40,000 members), Spanish socialists (several hundred thousand members), and Communist Party (10,000 members, though at the start it had less than 1,000).

These centrist forces veer between reformism and revolutionary politics, and the only consistently revolutionary forces were those of the Spanish Trotskyists, numbering only a few hundred. Yet, even the potential of these centrist forces becoming radicalised, and forming a Workers Government, by separating from the Popular Front, as Trotsky called for, was enough to scare the global ruling class witless, and prefer to see the fascists win, rather than suffer such an outcome that would have sent shock waves across Europe, and into the wider world.

Indeed, as Trotsky wrote, there is no such thing as "anti-fascism", and certainly not an "anti-fascist" war, which is the basis of the arguments of Paul Mason, today, and other supporters of the USC.  Trotsky wrote,“

"The very concepts of “anti-fascism” and “anti-fascist” are fictions and lies. Marxism approaches all phenomena from a class standpoint. Azaña is “anti-fascist” only to the extent that fascism hinders bourgeois intellectuals from carving out parliamentary or other careers. Confronted with the necessity of choosing between fascism and the proletarian revolution, Azaña will always prove to be on the side of the fascists. His entire policy during the seven years of revolution proves this.

On the other hand, the slogan “Against fascism, for democracy!” cannot attract millions and tens of millions of the populace if only because during wartime there was not and is not any democracy in the camp of the republicans. Both with Franco and with Azaña there have been military dictatorship, censorship, forced mobilization, hunger, blood, and death. The abstract slogan “For democracy!” suffices for liberal journalists but not for the oppressed workers and peasants. They have nothing to defend except slavery and poverty. They will direct all their forces to smashing fascism only if, at the same time, they are able to realize new and better conditions of existence. In consequence, the struggle of the proletariat and the poorest peasants against fascism cannot in the social sense be defensive but only offensive. That is why León goes wide of the mark when, following the more “authoritative” philistines, he lectures us that Marxism rejects utopias, and the idea of a socialist revolution during a struggle against fascism is utopian. In point of fact, the worst and most reactionary form of utopianism is the idea that it is possible to struggle against fascism without overthrowing the capitalist economy”.

(On the Causes for the Defeat of the Spanish Revolution)

For revolutionaries, the task was clear to ensure that any weapons going into Spain went to the actual revolutionary workers, but the reality was that the weapons that did get into the country, went instead to the Republican Government, which held them back, whilst the Spanish Communists got weapons from Russia, which it again held back for its own cadres. As Orwell relates,

“[The infantry were far worse armed than an English public school Officers' Training Corps with worn out Mauser rifles which usually jammed after five shots; approximately one machine gun to fifty men; and one pistol or revolver to about thirty men. These weapons so necessary in trench warfare were not issued by the government and could be bought only illegally and with the greatest difficulty...

A government which sends boys of fifteen to the front with rifles forty years old, and keeps its biggest men and newest weapons in the rear, is manifestly more afraid of the revolution than of the fascists.”

(George Orwell, Controversy, August 1937)

And Gerald Brennan, noted,

“To [the CP], winning the war meant winning it for the Communist Party and they were always ready to sacrifice military advantage to prevent a rival party on their own side from strengthening its position.”

(The Spanish Labyrinth)

And, if we look at the role of US imperialism in providing arms and military assistance elsewhere, there is no case in which it has done so to support truly revolutionary forces, as opposed to forces it could use to further its own global strategic ends. Far from supporting truly revolutionary forces, or even consistently bourgeois-democratic forces, it has more often been found to be supporting Salvadorean Death Squads, Nicaraguan Contras, the criminal gangs of the KLA, Osama Bin Laden and the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, and the jihadists in Libya and Syria!

Back To Part 5

Part 7 Will Appear On Saturday