The position of the USC, and particularly of those like Paul Mason, is explicitly campist. They see the world divided into two capitalist camps, that basically divide into “democracy” and “fascism”, and, having arrived at a moral decision that the former is the lesser evil, have picked a camp to support in that battle. Their support for Ukrainian independence is framed entirely within that bourgeois context, rather than any consideration of the principles of international socialism, or any concept that a solution resides, not in acting as cheerleader for “democratic imperialism” - and even more ludicrously when that means apologising for, and giving support to Zelensky's corrupt, right-wing regime, just as some of them did in glossing over the nature of Libyan jihadists supported by US imperialism – but in the independent third camp of the proletariat, and its revolutionary struggle against both of these capitalist camps.
It is the very definition of social-imperialism, of using vague socialist phrases and aspirations, whilst, in practice, giving full support to the war waged by one capitalist camp, and ensnaring the workers into it. All real class struggle against that class camp is essentially put on hold in order to support its war effort. The war of NATO imperialism is even urged on, by the likes of Paul Mason who want it to spend more on the means of destruction, and to modernise its arsenals, and the rest of the USC want more of those weapons shipped to Ukraine to facilitate the war effort of its chosen camp.
Trotsky, in the 1930's, argued for an independent Ukraine, but he did so in the context of international socialism, and a recognition that no such independence is possible, in the age of imperialism, outside the creation of socialism. The supporters of the USC, many of whom opposed the reactionary nationalism of Brexit, and also of the Lexiters, in justifying their position on Ukraine, by contrast, are forced to adopt the same bourgeois-nationalist notions of the Brexiters and Lexiters, based upon the possibility of an individual nation “taking back control”, when no such thing is possible.
The USC frame their argument on the basis that Russia seeks to annexe the whole of Ukraine, which is also the line of Zelensky and NATO, but its unlikely that any such notion is the basis of Putin's strategy. If it ever was, he would have needed to have mobilised many, many more troops and much more equipment before launching his invasion. Rather, what is seen is a continuation of the situation described by Trotsky, of countries, like Ukraine, being ripped apart by competing larger states and blocs.
In fact, a similar thing can be seen with Britain following Brexit, most clearly seen with the Northern Ireland Protocol, but whose logic is also to encourage Scotland and Wales to seek a similar arrangement, slicing up the UK, as bits return to the EU, if not the whole lot in one go. Similarly, it leaves the UK economically subordinated to the EU, whilst politically and militarily subordinated to the US, a situation that itself will tear apart the fabric of the state.
Similarly, things can be seen with NATO's tearing away of Kosovo from Serbia, and, now, attempts to tear Taiwan away from China, and so on. This perpetual partial war is a feature of imperialism.
No comments:
Post a Comment