One can only react with a wry smile at the current kerfuffle over a letter by the wife of the President of Ireland regarding the war in Ukraine. After decades of hypocritical and sanctimonious sermons on the evil of violence, the urgent imperative for peace and negotiations to achieve it, the essential requirement now is for war; victory in war for Ukraine.
The President’s wife, Sabina Coyne Higgins, has written to that august publication ‘The Irish Times’ to express dismay and disappointment that an editorial in the newspaper did not “encourage any ceasefire negotiations that might lead to a peace settlement”.
This led to indignant indignation among politicians that accused her of asserting moral equivalence between Ukraine and Russia and failing to follow the Government line of support for the former. Ukrainians in Ireland were quoted as not actually understanding what she was trying to say or of accusing her of not understanding what was going on. One Ukrainian who has lived in Ireland for 15 years said that it is “very easy to call for peace when you live in safe and comfortable conditions for a very long time” although the uproar induced would seem to indicate that it is easier to call for war.
Another Ukrainian stated that “If Russia lays down its arms, there will be no war. If Ukraine lays down its arms, there will be no Ukraine. That is why Ukrainians have not wished each other peace for a long time — they wish only victory. And we won’t settle for less . . .”
The newspaper has recently run a long article extolling the nationalist narrative of Ukrainian history and the inevitable conflict between it and Russia and ‘the real explosion of Cossack identity that started with the Russian invasion in 2014. Whole units, like the Azov battalion, wear similar [Cossack] haircuts, moustaches and earrings. It’s popular.’ The headline quotes the Ukrainian interviewee as saying that ‘This is a war of destruction. Either we destroy the Russians or they destroy us.’
So, we read justification of a nationalist programme that would be pilloried as bellicose and reactionary were it presented in support of any other country. The journalist responsible sees no need to interrogate the place of armed fascists in this resurgence of uncompromising nationalism or the meaning of proposed destruction of whole peoples.
She is not however to be singled out for blame.
What has been striking has been the almost universal acceptance of a tale of childlike simplicity: that Ukraine is the force fighting for freedom against an unprovoked invasion by evil Russia. As the photograph above shows, the smallest Irish towns in Ireland parade their support for the second most corrupt country in Europe against the first. In a war barely understood their simple truths have been substituted for the complexity of a messy reality.
But they too are not soleley to blame. Much of the left has decided to incant Lenin’s policy of ‘self-determination of nations’ in order to apply a rusty Occam’s razor to the war so it too can support ‘Ukraine’. In doing so they demonstrate that they have not got the first clue about what this policy meant never mind whether it is relevant today to the war in Ukraine. Self-determination thus becomes support for an already independent capitalist state in a war with another so that it can codify its alliance with the world’s biggest imperialist military alliance. Freedom to join NATO and to land your own people in a destructive war as a result is what it actually means.
This is what is clearly happening, and as Lenin said: ‘one of the basic principles of dialectics is that there is no such thing as abstract truth, truth is always concrete . . . ‘ This reactionary war on both sides is thus the expression of the reckless policy of seeking NATO membership by Ukraine and Russia’s determination to show that it meant what it said when it warned that this was a red line not to be crossed.
It matters not that Russia has no right to determine the policy of Ukraine. What right has Ukraine to threaten Russia through membership of NATO on its doorstep? Neither Ukrainian nor Russian workers have any interest in standing behind either ‘right’, never mind dying for it. But the pro-war left has decided that the right of capitalist powers to defend their prerogatives is justified under some abstract argument about the principle of self-determination that the working class has to pay for.
Their complete inability to have any purchase on reality is repeatedly exposed. So through their call for arming Ukraine they fail to expose or oppose the role of NATO and its share of responsibility for the war. They say Ukraine (by which they must mean this country’s capitalist state) must receive arms to fight, so dependence on NATO weapons, i.e. imperialism, becomes the road to self-determination! But since such arms as can be effective are only available from NATO they cannot, with any seriousness, now oppose the rearmament of the Western capitalist powers. A strange sort of ‘anti-capitalism’.
They oppose transfer of offensive weapons but the steady ratcheting up of the weapons supplied leaves them as useless spectators awaiting the transfer of whatever they decide as ‘offensive’, at which point are we to believe this capitalist war will change its character?
In this article one spokesman states that ‘we should neither support the latter’s sanctions, nor demand that they be lifted.’ But it’s as if the European Union has read this and decided to take the piss out of such ‘lack of support’ by having round after round of sanctions (currently seven) that the pro-war left will not demand are lifted? Are there no sanctions it would straightforwardly oppose in advance as opposed to accept after the fact?
This blog opposed western sanctions from the beginning because they could only hit working class Russians hardest. Now we see that they are hitting workers in the west as well but is there now opposition to them among those for whom the ability of a capitalist state to determine its military alliance is paramount?
Across all the issues arising from the war, from the progressive content to Ukrainian nationalism to the primary issue being Russian imperialism, the pro-war left has simply parroted the mainstream bourgeois media. Like support for Brexit; support for total economic lockdown to deal with Covid-19, and now support for sanctions, various parts of the left have championed policies that have disarmed the working class when it comes to identifying the causes of the cost-of-living crisis to which these policies have contributed.
We can expect that none will accept the slightest responsibility. Just like the Tories who support Brexit and ‘Ukraine’ they want to have their cake and to eat it. To oppose the capitalist EU but ignore the effects of Brexit on freedom of movement and living standards. Demand more extensive and longer economic lockdowns but ignore the social consequences some of which, like economic dislocation and inflation, now hit them in the face. Support ‘Ukraine’ but ignore the boost it has given to the NATO imperialist alliance and the effect of sanctions on living standards.
For a blog seeking to advance Marxist politics this is important, but not as important as the failings of the imperialist strategy to which some leftists provide a grotesque mirror image.
The bourgeois media asks us to believe that our ‘freedom’ is being protected by one of the most corrupt countries in Europe whose best fighters are fascists. We are threatened that unless we support it against the evil Russians, which have such a useless army that Ukraine can defeat it, they will steamroller across Europe. We must accept the possibility of freezing this winter because Russia has ‘weaponised’ gas supplies, even though the West has sent real weapons to kill as many Russians as possible and started the whole gas thing by preventing operation of the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline. We are called upon to blame Russia for potential famine in a range of countries because of its war on Ukraine but ignore the effect of Western sanctions on the supply of Russian food to the world, something that has had to be implicitly admit by its lifting of some of them.
None of this is consistent with the claims of the western bourgeoisie and its yellow media. In Ireland the homeopathic letter from the Irish President’s wife has opened up a small window for questioning support for the war.
Over the weekend I read the ‘Financial Times’ (FT). It had a review of the book ‘Nazi Billionaires’ which records the largely hidden history of Germany’s richest capitalist dynasties who escaped punishment after the war for their collaboration with the Nazi regime. This was the conscious policy of the major western powers for whom strengthening German capitalism was much more important than punishing Nazis for their crimes or imposing justice on behalf of their victims. This has not stopped regular evocation of the enemies of the Western capitalist powers as the new Nazis with Putin as the new Hitler. Just like after World War II, these states are not interested in justice but in their own power and that of their capitalist class.
The only consistent position opposed to the war is the socialist argument that workers have no interest in fighting for the system that exploits them, in wars that we pay for in money and blood. To do so we must oppose nationalist flag-waving and a media that on this occasion does not even seek to hide its bias. A certain Mrs Higgins has proved more in tune with such a task than many of the left.
There is a correlation here with the news media treatment of the passing of David Trimble. Journalism seems unable to get beyond an understanding based on recording random events and
diagnosing personality traits. There is no understanding of political laws and contradictory political tendencies. Interesting also that while much of ‘marxism’ still makes mention of economic laws and economic tendencies it is fairly typical to revert back to recording random events and assessing personalities in the conversations about politics. We need to know if David Trimble represented a new tendency in politics or just a well established one, that is of Unionist Conservatism. Likewise we need to know what laws of politics and what political tendencies are at work in relation to the war in Europe and Ukraine. The science of politics is like a lost education.
It doesn’t take much these days even for the liberal bourgeoisie to be more progressive than the so called Left, which has collapsed into reactionary, petty-bourgeois socialism of one sort or another. The epitome of it is indeed its attachment to so called “anti-capitalism”, which is simply a throw back to the ideas of Sismondi, if not the Luddites, and absolutely nothing to do with, and indeed the very antithesis to the ideas of Marx, as many of your posts have illustrated.
The liberal bourgeoisie, representing the actual interests of that capital, is streets ahead of the so called Left, which has attached itself via this “anti-capitalism”, as with also “anti-imperialism” to the reactionary ideas of the petty-bourgeoisie. Describing similar conditions in relation to the Narodniks, Lenin noted, describing the relation between Liberals (Enlighteners), Marxists (Disciples), and Narodniks.
“The enlightener believes in the present course of social development, because he fails to observe its inherent contradictions. The Narodnik fears the present course of social development, because he is already aware of these contradictions. The “disciple” believes in the present course of social development, because he sees the only earnest of a better future in the full development of these contradictions. The first and last trends therefore strive to support, accelerate, facilitate development along the present path, to remove all obstacles which hamper this development and retard it. Narodism, on the contrary, strives to retard and halt this development, is afraid of abolishing certain obstacles to the development of capitalism. The first and last trends are distinguished by what may be called historical optimism: the farther and the quicker things go as they are, the better it will be. Narodism, on the contrary, naturally tends to historical pessimism: the farther things go as they are, the worse it will be.”
(The Heritage We Renounce)