Marxists can oppose a war, or intervention by their own government and state, without, thereby, taking the position of “my enemy's enemy is my friend”. When US imperialism invaded Vietnam, Marxists opposed such intervention, but that implied no requirement to support the nationalists of the Viet Cong, who had, also, slaughtered thousands of Vietnamese communists. As Trotsky wrote in relation to the Chinese Revolution, fighting against the colonial occupation of China, did not, at all mean supporting the main “anti-imperialist”, nationalist forces of the Kuomintang, as the Stalinists demanded, especially as that same KMT nationalist government, as representative of the Chinese bourgeoisie, was itself inextricably tied to imperialism, and, as in Vietnam, slaughtered tens of thousands of communists!
So, although Trotsky, on the one hand, explained why Sudeten Germans, oppressed by a supposedly “democratic” regime in Czechoslovakia, looked to Nazi Germany, he neither supported their conclusions in doing so, nor supported Nazi Germany in “liberating” them from that oppression. Nor was the fact that Germany was a “fascist” imperialist state, of relevance to Trotsky in reaching that conclusion. And, whilst he did not support that invasion by Nazi Germany, he also argued, clearly, against Marxists, in Czechoslovakia or elsewhere, supporting a war of “national independence” to oppose it.
He wrote,
“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.”
In fact, war did not break out over Czechoslovakia, but did, shortly after, over the invasion of Poland. Similarly, it was clear nearly two decades ago, at the time of Russia's invasion of Georgia that any similar further expansion, by NATO, specifically into Ukraine, would be opposed, and would lead to war. So, when NATO pressed ahead in supporting the Maidan coup, in 2014, against the democratically elected, pro-Russian government, of Yanukovytch, it knew exactly what it was doing, and what the response would be. Again, that does not mean that Marxists support that response, but we understand, given our understanding of the laws of motion of imperialism, why that response was inevitable. Similarly, that inevitable response having occurred, then, as with Trotsky's position in relation to the Sudetenland, there is also no reason to support the war undertaken by the imperialist Ukrainian state, backed by NATO imperialism.
“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 these untimely theoreticians of “national independence.”
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.”
(ibid)
No comments:
Post a Comment