Why Marxists should not oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Critique of two editorials at "Defense of Marxism"
The editors of “In Defense of Marxism” recommend reading the following articles together
Imperialist hypocrisy and the invasion of Ukraine
https://www.marxist.com/imperialist-hypocrisy-and-the-invasion-of-ukraine.htm
No to war with Ukraine! Against Russian military intervention! https://www.marxist.com/no-to-war-with-ukraine-against-russian-military-intervention.htm
I largely concur with assessment of the military and diplomatic situation laid out by Alan Woods in “Imperialist Hypocrisy and the invasion.” But not what is set forth in the final section under the heading “What Attitude Should We Take?” Quoting from the final 3 paragraphs:
”Do we support Vladimir Putin and the Russian oligarchy whose interests he backs? No, Putin is no friend of the working class, either in Russia, Ukraine or anywhere else. The invasion of Ukraine is merely a continuation of his own cynical and reactionary agenda.
“But that is not the question we should ask ourselves at this time. The question is: can we in any shape or form appear to be in the same camp as US and British imperialism? Can we associate ourselves, directly or indirectly with NATO, that reactionary imperialist gang? Or with Boris Johnson and the war-monger Liz Truss, or that Blairite traitor Starmer?
“It is the task of the Russian working class to deal with Putin. Our fight is against imperialism, NATO and our own reactionary Tory government and those miserable so-called Labour leaders who are its partners in crime. As Lenin always insisted: the main enemy is at home. It is high time we reminded ourselves of that fact.”
Pray tell, what is the reactionary agenda of Putin in general and with respect to Ukraine in particular?
Putin has effectively been the man in charge of the Russian government since the eve of the 21st century. When he took power, Russia was essentially a semi-colony of the US-NATO alliance. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact were dissolved. The US had played a significant role in helping to establish a regime in the Russian Federation to its liking in the 1990s, which restored capitalism and plunged a majority of the population into deep poverty.
Putin’s agenda since taking power was to partly restore state ownership of some key resources, especially oil, re-establish a centralized plan of economic development and impose some discipline on the capitalist class, especially those who became billionaires overnight by looting state assets. The primary goals have been to restore the sovereignty and independence of Russia, and reconcile the population to the new capitalist order via a social contract which included bringing living standards back to first world standards.
The government of Russia of in the 21st century restored and / or maintained alliances with some of the former Soviet Republics, such as Belarus and some Central Asian Republics on a fairly equitable basis. I do not know whether Russia is now a net-capital exporting country, the definition of an imperialist state used by Rosa Luxemburg. Russia’s Gross Domestic Product is comparable to that of South Korea’s. That is an extraordinarily weak economic foundation for an imperialist power.
Russia is closely aligned with China, which has an industrial base greater than that of the US, but with 4 times the population. The Chinese government established a hybrid economic system by nesting a largely export-oriented capitalist class and encouraging foreign investment in some regions of China. I do not know if China is a net exporter of capital, but if not, it appears to be heading in that direction.
The Chinese Communist Party is maintaining a monopoly of political power in part via political repression, including a ban opposition political parties and a social credit system. Yet the Chinese Communist Party also leans on the proletariat for support. However, the CCP’s mandate to govern, the basis of popular consent to be governed is a social compact with the population, which has a reflection in the egalitarian ethos of the official Marxist doctrine and policies which have in recent years improved minimal living standards for the population
Putin’s primary political base, United Russia is united behind the course which Putin has been steering Russia for more then 20 years. United Russia has been described as a Russian nationalist entity. Based on my limited understanding of Russian politics, that seems to be an accurate label. The editor of In Defense of Marxism, Alan Woods and Ted Grant, the deceased founder of a couple of political tendencies have made a compelling cased that “nationalism” is a reactionary ideology. I do not dispute that. However, the struggle for national independence and sovereignty against imperialist blood suckers can have a “progressive” content, in the sense of the term as employed by Marxists.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is essentially a long delayed response to the US backed coup d'etat in 2014. Ukraine has been governed by a coalition of Ukrainian nationalists and fascists that is hostile to Russia and to ethic Russians within Ukraine. Ukraine has been a quasi-fascist client state of the US since 2014, and it appears that a large majority of the Ukrainian population expressed their dissatisfaction with that arrangement by electing Volodimir Zelenski, a Jewish actor and comedian to the presidency by an enormous margin. But nothing fundamentally changed after Zelenski’s election. Zelenski had an electoral mandate to normalize relations with Russia and with ethnic Russians who live in Ukraine. That was the only path toward to ending the civil war and the fascist reign of terror, but Zelenski did not, and perhaps could not lead Ukraine in that direction.
The final two paragraphs in Wood’s article argue that Marxists and the left in NATO countries should not take the side of their own bourgeois governments. The problem is that Woods is also boiling down the conflict of interests between Russia and NATO over Ukraine to nothing more than an inter-imperialist rivalry and that the interests of the working class in Ukraine and internationally is not aligned with the objectives of either side in relation to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia’s intervention to oust the regime in Kiev installed via a US orchestrated coup d’etat coincides not only with Russia’s national interests but also those of the proletariat in Ukraine and beyond.
The final paragraph in “No to War with Ukraine! Against Russian Military Intervention reads
”The most important task of honest Russian communists is to directly oppose Russia’s military intervention. The sanctioning of this operation under the pretext of “protecting the Russian population”, “fighting against Nazism”, and so on is a direct betrayal of the principles of internationalism. The position of the leadership of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which formally offered Putin their recognition of the people’s republics of the Donbas, and then approved the introduction of troops and the military operation, has caused the greatest harm in this respect. It is noteworthy that this is happening at the very moment when members of the Communist Party itself, from Moscow to Vladivostok, are facing repression. We believe that consistent communists in the ranks of this party should strongly protest against the fact that the leadership has not only capitulated to Russian chauvinism, but is leading its procession. The time has come for all loyal communists to remember the lessons of the collapse of the Second International; to remember Lenin's struggle against the social chauvinists and the principles on which the Communist International was founded!”
The line of argument above is based on a reductionist logical fallacy. Putin is the head of a capitalist state carrying out a policy which serves the narrow national interests of Russia and which has support among nationalists and Russian chauvinists. However, Russia’s invasion of Ukrainian occurred in a context of a cold war in which Russia’s independence and sovereignty is at stake and of the establishment of a quasi-fascist client state in Ukraine with considerable input from the US since 2014. The comparison of Russia today with the Russian empire in 1914, at the outbreak of World War 1 is hyperbole. The Russia of 2022 is not an imperialist power comparable to the US and its NATO allies. The Russian government is fighting to preserve its independence and sovereignty against a hybrid cold war waged by the US and NATO. Russia’s regime change project in Ukraine, if successful would serve both the national interests of Russia and the interests of the proletariat of Ukraine, Russia and the NATO countries. There is evidence to indicate that the Russian invasion may have widespread popular support in Ukraine, especially in the Eastern regions.
Also read my previous commentary: