Leaders of the NATO imperialist, military alliance have been meeting in Washington to celebrate the 75th. anniversary of the formation of the world's most successful and powerful offensive, expansionist force in history. In reality, the alliance is simply an expression of US imperialism, and its global military and economic hegemony, established after WWII, with the other allies subordinated to it, and its global strategic and expansionary ambitions. At the top of this empire, therefore, sits its elected Tsar, Genocide Joe Biden, who the world has seen, over the last year, and even more clearly over the last weeks, is a senile, mental incompetent.
For years, another occupant of his position, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was able to hide from public view the fact that he was disabled probably due to Guillain–Barré syndrome, though diagnosed as Polio. Similar attempts have been made to hide Biden's mental incompetence from public view, hence his absence from press conferences, and question and answer sessions over the last year or so. That could not continue, once the insistence on having him contest the election against Trump, rather than risk the Democrat members selecting someone more radical, meant he had to take part in the Presidential debate.
Even against the moronic Trump, Biden lost badly, not just because he had to try to defend the indefensible nature of his political record over the last five years, during which he has attacked US workers, armed and supported genocide in Gaza, overseen, the lunacy of lockdowns, and subsequent inflation, as the currency was trashed via liquidity injections, but also his own mental deficiency was there for all to see, as he failed to complete sentences, slurred his speech, and talked gibberish.
The Democrat establishment that has gone out of its way, over the last decade, to prevent Bernie Sanders from getting the nomination – himself older than Biden, but still, at least, compos mentis – was thrown into panic, as it first tried to explain away his performance on the basis of jet lag, a cold, tiredness, "a friend came in from out of town", then, began to fracture and panic even more, as it dawned that he could not, now, beat Trump, but probably nor could Kamala Harris, and that would leave it open to the potential for rank and file members actually nominating Sanders, or some other more progressive candidate, at the Convention.
Yet, as the world could see Biden's mental frailty, and as Democrats began to call on him to stand down, including influential Democrat fundraiser, George Clooney, the other leaders of NATO countries, like newly “elected” prime Minister, Keir Starmer, rushed to pronounce him to be sharp as a pin. They were obviously lying, as Biden's further performance, in which he described Trump as his Vice President, and, in a Freudian slip, announced the President of Ukraine as President Putin! But such lying is their stock in trade, as most clearly on display in the case of Starmer in the recent election campaign, and its aftermath. It should be borne in mind when considering their other statements, for example, in relation to their war against Russia, being undertaken on the territory of Ukraine, by its proxy Ukrainian imperialism.
A year, ago, for example, we were being told that Putin was mad, a megalomaniac like Hitler, as the only explanation for his actions in invading Ukraine, rather than that it was a rational response to the expansion of NATO, ever Eastwards, and, as former NATO Secretary-General, George Robertson put it, them goading Russia into it. When, Nigel Farage, made that observation, during the election campaign, the imperialist media were quick to jump on it, as well as other bourgeois politicians from amongst the ranks of Conservatives and Blue Labour. It would do for the hopes of Farage, and Reform, they all predicted, but, instead, the voters piled in behind Reform in even greater numbers. After all, Farage, also, brought out the statement of that great Zelensky supporter, Boris Johnson, who had, also, said, when it suited his agenda, back in 2015, that the EU had caused Russia's invasion.
Not only was Putin mad, we were told, but the military analysts, and wannabe war mongers like Paul Mason, appeared on TV, and in print, telling us that his days were numbered, as it was reported he was seriously ill, and if that didn't get him, the cabal around him was set to do the job, a hope they fostered further, when Prigozhin launched his “coup”. Putin was set for military defeat in Ukraine, we were told, and was already running out of military resources. All of course, lies and fantasy that only strengthens the obnoxious regime of Putin himself, as they become exposed as such. Instead, as I had noted, some time before, NATO's global imperialist war against China~Russia, of which the war in Ukraine is only part, has blown apart social democracy in the West, most visibly in the EU, but also, in North America, in conditions where the model of conservative social-democracy, built over the last 40 years, based on the inflation of asset prices, and debt collateralised upon it, was already defunct, and the political “centre”, resting upon it, had collapsed.
Present at the NATO jamboree was Zelensky himself. He has been promised an inevitable entry into NATO for Ukraine, though, like Starmer's promises on many issues, no date for such has been given. That is despite the illiberal and corrupt nature of Ukraine, which western states and media detailed, before it was acting as NATO's proxy in the war against Russia, but which they have kept silent about ever since. Of course, being illiberal, corrupt and undemocratic is not any barrier to NATO membership, which includes in its ranks Türkiye, not to mention its alliances with various dictators and tyrants across the globe, for example, the feudal regimes in the Gulf states. But, Ukraine has also been promised a fast track into the EU, too. In reality, it has no more chance of joining the EU than Türkiye. If it were, it would spell the end of the EU itself.
Taking in Bulgaria and Romania was a bit of a stretch for the EU, given their own levels of corruption, as was set out in a guest post, here, three years ago, by Ronald Young. In addition, the experience of the illiberal and corrupt regimes in Hungary and Poland has also placed strain on the functioning of the EU, as it has continually failed to bring about the necessary political union. But, compared to Ukraine, these are relatively small countries, and paragons of virtue compared to the vast expanse of Ukraine, and its equally vast levels of corruption, ultra-nationalism, illiberalism, not to mention its collapsed economy, and demographic disaster, which the EU would have to address if it were a member. That is besides the fact that it is currently engaged in an inter-imperialist war with Russia!
And, so we come to the question of that war, and the support for it from the ranks of the social-imperialists. The ranks of the latter, of course, do not include the likes of the bourgeois, social-democratic politicians such as Biden, Starmer, Scholz and so on. As bourgeois politicians, representing the interests of imperialist capital, there is nothing “social” about their imperialism. No, in talking about “social imperialists”, what is meant is those within the ranks of supposed “socialist” , including “communist” parties that justify and support the imperialist war, whilst framing their apologism in socialist or even “Marxist” verbiage. The most common means of them doing that is to argue that what is involved is not an inter-imperialist war, but a war of national liberation, a war fought on the basis of national independence, and national self-determination.
They have to do that, to demarcate themselves from the bourgeois imperialism of the likes of Biden, Starmer, as much as the likes of Sunak et al. The latter can argue openly on the basis of an imperialist war, in which, Ukraine and its NATO backers are free to use whatever means to defeat Russia, removing any distinction between a defensive war or an offensive war. For them, the only issue, in that respect, is what is tactically to their advantage, and their desire, at least for now, not to have that war escalate into a global conflagration.
For the social-imperialists, however, things stand somewhat differently. As, at least in name, socialists, let alone communists, they cannot justify backing an imperialist war, and yet, they are doing just that. As with the socialists in WWI, and WWII, therefore, they have to claim that the war actually being fought is not an inter-imperialist war, as with WWI, and II, but a war of national independence, to liberate Ukraine from Russian imperialism and aggression. But, of course, that is what the former socialists across Europe argued in WWI. The socialists in each country, argued that they were only backing the war conducted by their own ruling class, in so far as it was a war of national self-defence, against the aggression of the other imperialist states!
In fact, it was that which led the Bolsheviks to remove from their programme the demand for the right of national self-determination, which the bourgeois defencists had used to mean the right to national self-defence, and to replace it with the right of free secession. But, even this argument falls apart when the state that is supposed to be acting only in “self-defence”, itself acts aggressively, and wages war not on its own turf, but on the territory of some other state, for example as with the Zionist state's claim to be acting only in self-defence whilst levelling with its munitions the whole of Gaza, and increasingly the West Bank.
The social-imperialists of organisations such as the USC, have performed all sorts of mental and verbal acrobatics to justify their position and support for the imperialist war undertaken by NATO and Ukrainian imperialism. One of the first points upon which they have pirouetted is the characterisation of Ukraine itself as an imperialist state. Yet, it clearly is. The definition of imperialism, as set out by Lenin, is that the given state is dominated by, and characterised by monopoly capitalism, closely tied to the state. It is the highest stage of capitalism, the stage prior to its replacement by socialism.
““. . . State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs” (pages 27 and 28)”
Can anyone doubt that Ukraine's economy is dominated by such large-scale, monopoly capitalism, including multinational capital closely tied to the state? Indeed, for those on the other side, the social imperialists backing Russian imperialism, this also applies, as the Russian economy is likewise dominated by imperialist capital. Both are imperialists states. As Trotsky, also, put it, dealing with the idea, also used by the USC, that the war against the Russian invasion can be separated from any such wider considerations,
“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.
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.
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.”
Ukraine, is comprised of a number of ethnic groups and nationalities, not least of which, of course, are the ethnic Russians that are concentrated in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, and whose oppression and treatment by the Ukrainian state, led to their breakaway in 2014, and provided the pretext for the Russian invasion. Ukraine's military has itself been involved in support of NATO imperialism, in the Middle East, and currently in Sudan. It is clearly an imperialist state, but, as Trotsky says, above, even were that not the case, the fact of the involvement of NATO imperialism in the war in Ukraine, not only in the provision of huge amounts of the latest weapons and technology, but also the involvement of NATO forces in Ukraine, and in the Black Sea, in military operations, let alone the general context of a global squaring up of the two opposing imperialist blocs, means that the class nature of the war in Ukraine is quite clearly one defined by imperialism.
The second point upon which the social imperialists have, therefore sought to balance, is that, whilst recognising all of that, and that, for NATO this is an imperialist war, which they do not support, the workers in Ukraine are, nevertheless fighting a war of national liberation, and it is that they are supporting. That, of course, is nonsense, because there is no independent revolutionary, proletarian organisation fighting independently of the Ukrainian state and its military. The Ukrainian workers are wholly subordinated to that state, and its military hierarchy, and command.
Following on from this point, the social-imperialists are, then, forced to accept that, if this is, then, purely a defensive war by Ukraine, a war fought solely on the basis of national independence, and one which socialists can only support on that basis, the demands of the social imperialists for NATO to arm Ukraine can only be justified on the basis of those weapons being purely defensive weapons. This, of course, is even more nonsense. As Trotsky set out clearly in relation to the Chinese Revolution, Marxists do not call for the arming of our class enemies, even in conditions of an actual war of national independence.
Trotsky opposed the arming of the bourgeois nationalist government of the KMT, by Stalin, and instead demanded the separation of the communist forces from the KMT, the creation of soviets, as the fundamental requirement for the arming only of the revolutionary forces in pursuance of such a liberation struggle. He adopted the same position in relation to France and Spain and so on. Secondly, the distinction between offensive and defensive weapons is itself nonsense. Weapons are of themselves, neither offensive nor defensive, because that distinction is determined by those that use those weapons. A shield can be used to defend against an attack, but can also be used to batter an opponent, or be held in one hand, as cover, whilst using the other hand to wield a sword offensively against an opponent.
In order to argue that they were only calling for NATO to send weapons to Ukraine to be used defensively they were already, therefore, on tortuous and slippery grounds of semantics that was likely to leave them sprawled on their arse at any moment. They had to defend the use of illegal cluster munitions that elsewhere they would have condemned, for example. Each time the Ukrainian state launched attacks into Russia, using terrorist methods, often, thereby, also killing Russian civilians, they had to try to claim that they had not been carried out by Ukraine.
But, as each month has gone by, and Russia has simply sat on the territory it has annexed in Eastern Ukraine, and which it can do for ever more, despite NATO claims to the contrary, both NATO and the Ukrainian state have become increasingly exasperated, and all the more so, now that the mentally defective Biden, is on the verge of handing the Presidency and control of NATO to the morally and intellectually defective Trump. The demands of Zelensky and the Ukrainian oligarchs, and their imperialist state, for even more, even more technologically developed and offensive weapons from NATO have been stepped up, and have fallen on more receptive ears.
In part, this is another attempt to goad Russia into moving from its secure defensive position in Eastern Ukraine, to a more aggressive stance, to attack the rest of Ukraine, before such weapons can be delivered and put in place. It is unlikely to work, as Russia is likely to be able to counter any such new weapons, and to learn vital military lessons from doing so. Russia's response seems instead to be to reply in like manner, by promising more advanced weapons to some of its own client states across the globe, some adjacent to NATO countries, and so on. In other words, another step up the ladder towards WWIII.
The imperialists can justify this, as well as now giving the green light for Ukraine to officially use these latest weapons, including the F-19's, and Stormshadow Cruise Missiles to attack deep inside Russia. But, whilst the imperialists, like Biden, Starmer, Macron or Scholz have no problem with that, it is poison to the social-imperialists who have based their whole argument on the idea that what they are supporting is only a purely defensive war of national self-defence by Ukraine.
As Ukrainian imperialism, utilises these new weapons to rain death and destruction down on Russian towns and cities, killing hundreds of Russian civilians, men, women and babies, will they finally have to recognise the reality of the war they have been backing? Some no doubt will, but, for example, the AWL, even today, continue to talk, as the bombs fall on Gaza, about Israel's right of national defence. For such people, social imperialism is really just a paper thin cover for their actual collapse into pro-imperialism, much as with their mentors Burnham and Shacthman.
No comments:
Post a Comment