Social-Imperialism and Ukraine - Part 7 of 37

The USC say,

“The conflict would then indeed not be prolonged, as Andrew Murray fears: rather it would result in the victory of a militarily superior Russia – but the suffering of the Ukrainian people would thenceforth be very prolonged indeed.”

This is pure speculation, and not very well founded speculation at that. Firstly, as Blairite, former NATO Secretary General, George Robertson has admitted, NATO goaded Russia into invading Ukraine. There was never any possibility that Russia could occupy the whole of Ukraine, as the Ukrainian and NATO propaganda sometimes pretend. Its ability, even to seize all of the areas of Eastern and Southern Ukraine, with majority ethnic Russian populations has been fraught, and taken a year. Having been drawn into the war, its objective has almost certainly only ever been to consolidate those areas, rather than to go any further. Indeed, given the heavy shelling of those areas, after 2014, by the Ukrainian state, spearheaded by the forces of the Azov Battalion, and given increased anti-Russian sentiment amongst the ethnic Ukrainian population, it is highly unlikely that Ukraine would ever be able to reincorporate those areas and Crimea, back into Ukraine, without either severe ethnic cleansing, or a prolonged civil war.

As Marxists, we do not fetishise lines drawn on maps, as defining national borders, and, given that, the most obvious solution, currently, would, then, be for Ukraine to accept that Crimea and the Donbas are gone and not coming back, and a peace treaty established on that basis. That would also create the potential for socialists to argue the need for Russian workers to deal with Putin themselves, and begin to forge links with workers in Ukraine and elsewhere. The first part of any socialist strategy in Ukraine, would be for Ukrainian socialists to demand an end to the attacks on Eastern Ukraine, by the Ukrainian state, and for implementation of the promised extensive regional autonomy.  A comparison can be made with the experience of the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia, in 1939, and Trotsky's response to that is instructive in relation to the current events.

Trotsky, notes in relation to the Sudeten Germans,

“It would seem that the Czechoslovakian democracy which stood under the August protection of Franco-British democracy and of the "socialist" bureaucracy of the USSR had every opportunity to show the Sudeten Germans the great advantages in reality of a democratic regime over a fascist one. If this task had been resolved, Hitler would not dare, of course, to make an attempt on the Sudetenland. His main strength lies now precisely in the fact that the Sudeten Germans themselves want unity with Germany. This desire was inspired in them by the rapacious and police regime of Czechoslovakian "democracy" which "fought" fascism by imitating its worst methods.”

Trotsky found no reason to argue against the Sudeten Germans seeking to be separated from “democratic” Czechoslovakia, and joining Nazi Germany. He explained their reason for doing so.

“Only pitiful babblers or fascist crooks can speak of the irresistible "call of blood" in connection with the fate of the Saar, the Austrian and Sudeten Germans. The Swiss Germans, for example, do not want at all to go into slavery under Hitler, because they feel themselves masters in their country, and Hitler would think ten times before attacking them. Intolerable social and political conditions must exist for citizens of a "democratic" country to be seized by a desire for fascist power. The Germans of the Saar in France, the Austrian Germans in the Europe of Versailles, the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia felt themselves citizens of third rank. "It will not be worse," they said to themselves. In Germany, at least, they will be oppressed on the same basis as the rest of the population. The masses prefer under these conditions equality in serfdom to humiliation in inequality. The temporary strength of Hitler lay in the bankruptcy of imperialist democracy.”

And Trotsky, completely rejected the idea, put forward at the time, not only by the democratic imperialists, and social imperialists, but also the Stalinists, that any such redrawing of maps by Hitler should be confronted by an imperialist war waged against Germany. In words that apply perfectly to today's situation, and the response that Marxists should have towards Putin, and towards NATO imperialism's war drive, Trotsky writes,

“The democracies of the Versailles Entente helped the victory of Hitler by their vile oppression of defeated Germany. Now the lackeys of democratic imperialism of the Second and Third Internationals are helping with all their might the further strengthening of Hitler's regime. Really, what would a military bloc of imperialist democracies against Hitler mean? A new edition of the Versailles chains, even more heavy, bloody, and intolerable. Naturally, not a single German worker wants this. To throw off Hitler by revolution is one thing; to strangle Germany by an imperialist war is quite another. The howling of the "pacifist" jackals of democratic imperialism is therefore the best accompaniment to Hitler's speeches. "You see," he says to the German people, "even socialists and communists of all enemy countries support their army and their diplomacy; if you will not rally around me, your leader, you are threatened with doom!" Stalin, the lackey of democratic imperialism, and all the lackeys of Stalin —Jouhaux, Toledano, and Company — are the best aides of Hitler in deceiving, lulling, and intimidating the German workers.”

(Phrases and Reality)

See Also Trotsky's rejection of the arguments of the social imperialists, based upon "national independence", in the case of Czechoslovakia.

Today, it is the social-imperialists of the USC engaged in that same role.

Back To Part 6

Forward To Part 8