Monthly Archives: June 2023

A reactionary war throws up more reaction

Posted on by
1

The ‘mutiny’ by Yevgeny Prigozhin and at least some of his mercenary army is a bolt from the blue, at least for those not in security circles in the Russian Federation, and like all bolts from the blue both confuses and illuminates.  As I write it is impossible to determine the precise cause or their exact future course but it is possible to reflect on it politically, if only because it confirms the arguments and analysis of this blog–that we are witness to a reactionary war on both sides that the working class must oppose.

But let’s take a step back first.  In the last few weeks the Ukrainian state launched its much heralded offensive even while hesitating to declare it itself.  While this offensive is not exhausted, and the Ukrainian armed forces (UAF) still have the majority of its prepared forces available, it is clear that they cannot be assembled in such a way as to achieve the necessary mass and force to make significant advances.  Instead, it would appear that they have suffered many casualties with reports of some surrendering rather than take part in what they have called suicide missions, with prisoners condemning their commanding officers.

Supporters of the Ukrainian state and its war with is allies in western imperialism will either bury their heads in the sand or decry these actions; this is, after all, a war of national liberation for them, and there is no point here pointing out the absurdity of such a war being fought at the urging of the United States, Britain, France and Germany etc. with their own long record of involvement in war.  They should, instead, be welcoming these Ukrainian workers in uniform deciding that they do not think this war is worth dying for.

The pro-war left which exclaims the necessity for Ukrainians to defend themselves will have to explain why doing so is necessary when it only leads to their death.  But then perhaps for them it’s not really about the lives of ordinary Ukrainians but the necessity for the Ukrainian state to win regardless of the cost.  As this blog has pointed out, this would simply be the continuing identity of the politics of this left with the policy of western imperialism–from its explanation of the cause of the war to its political character and its ultimate objective.

For socialists, the refusal to fight for their respective capitalist states, both Ukrainian and Russian, is precisely the way forward for the working class of both countries, as a first necessary step to asserting their own interest over both.  It is, after all, how the Russian revolution came about, which some of this left might want to recall.

The internal conflict between Prigozhin and Russian authorities also exposes the equal stupidity of those on the left who think the Russian state is fighting a progressive war. Where is the popular mobilisation of the Russian working class and which side should it be called upon to support were it to exist?

For the pro-war supporters of Russia this is must be the Russian armed forces loyal to Putin and his regime, a regime that suppresses any independent activity of the working class and presents as progress a more equal division of the world between the largest capitalist powers.  A policy variously labelled as pluripolarity or multipolarity but which simply rearranges the vectors of power of the various capitalist states under the pretence of ‘anti-imperialism’.

True to the simple-mindedness of the pro-war left, the twitter-sphere is replete with supporters of Ukraine deriding those opposed to the war, asking if will they organise a march to demand Putin lay down his weapons and enter peace talks with Prigozhin; asking is it only against some wars?  They mock this opposition by saying it should urge Putin to cede territory to Prigozhin, while stating that it seeks desperately to find a way to blame western imperialism.

It says something for the mindset of this left that it misses no opportunity to claim how blameless western imperialism is, as if the continued existence of NATO, its escalation of the proxy war in Ukraine and its very existence as a system of oppression and exploitation matters not a jot. A default position that comes to the defence of western imperialism is not in any sense left wing, even taking account of the purely relative and imprecise nature of such a description.

For those of us opposed to both reactionary forces in Russia, we might ask this pro-war ‘left’ what side it proposes to support, since it believes that this is obligatory, or has it discovered that this is not necessarily the case? Has it discovered that not all those opposed to Putin are progressive and that not all those getting in the way of great Russian imperialism should be supported?

Perhaps it might be considered unfair to pick up on glib remarks on twitter, if only because it provokes a response that does no more than expose the shallowness of their position.  But this is precisely the point. Their child-like school playground remarks are a faithful reflection of the political arguments of the ‘left’ supporters of Ukraine, who can go no further than invoking Lenin’s policy of self-determination of nations that they obviously don’t understand, and which, if they were serious about, would attempt to explain how they avoid the criticism of Lenin in his writings of the position they now support.

Both the Ukrainian offensive and the internecine conflict within the Russian state, are clear illustration of the panoply of reactionary forces engaged in the war out of which only even more reactionary events will come if it is allowed to continue.  Over the last sixteen months the war has escalated with its supporters on both sides oblivious to their (minor) role in assisting this escalation through their support for it, even while they warn of the future disaster potentially arising from further escalation.

They have turned Marxism into a hollow series of formulas and slogans that are evacuated of any working class content and become vessels that support western imperialism through demanding ‘self-determination’ (of already independent capitalist states) or support for ‘anti-imperialism’ (on behalf of some of the most powerful capitalist states on the planet).

The longer it goes on the more these ‘lefts’ become useful idiots of the various capitalist powers and an obstacle to the creation of a movement that knows that it can be socialist only if it opposes capitalist war.  

Debating the war (3 of 3) – the analogy with Ireland

Posted on by
2

A recurring analogy made is with the Irish nationalist struggle against British imperialism and I have addressed this before.

Supporters of Ukraine have told us that ‘when internationalists support the Ukrainians right to resist militarily the Russian invasion and obtain arms from NATO countries, it is not an endorsement of NATO. There have been many movements of national liberation in the past which have called upon imperialist countries for arms without being condemned by socialists: Irish nationalists in 1917, the Spanish republic in 1936, the communist resistance in World War Two, to name a few.’

I wrote in reply –‘Let’s just take the Irish example. Was Ireland an independent state in 1916 or a British colony? Were the Irish rebels in 1916 seeking to join the German imperialist alliance, or did they claim ‘We serve neither King nor Kaiser’? Did the Irish workers movement participate as a separate political and armed force from the bourgeois nationalists, and did not James Connolly repeatedly declare the political independence of the Irish working class? Was his anti-imperialism the anti-imperialism of opposition to foreign rule or opposition also to capitalism and for the creation of a Socialist Republic? Where does the capitalist Ukrainian state and the ‘Ukrainian resistance’ stand on all these questions today?’

‘But let’s not leave the Irish analogy there. What happened to the Irish national struggle when the forces of the working class proved to be too weak and the movement became a purely bourgeois one? ‘Labour’ was told to wait, just as in Ukraine today, and the forces of bourgeois nationalism accepted a settlement with imperialism that left the working class more divided than before, subject to two reactionary regimes that inflicted years of austerity, unemployment and emigration built upon Catholic Church abuse of women and children and Protestant sectarianism and discrimination. Today the capitalist Irish state supports the Ukrainian capitalist state and imperialism, particularly that of the US, upon which its current success depends . . .’

I could have gone on to reference the policy of Marxists in Ireland over the last 50 or so years, which, despite many mistakes, never collapsed into support for Irish republicanism, never ceased to organise separately, never sought alliance with or peddled illusions in the Irish bourgeoisie and never looked, unlike republicans, to right-wing or establishment forces in the United States.  The nature of that struggle meant that the idea of support from any western imperialist power would have been considered ridiculous.

In the Tendance Coatsey debate, one comment proclaims ‘I wonder if “Irish Marxism” would be in favour of someone arguing that Irish self-determination was of no interest to Irish workers since all it led to was a “bourgeois” republic. And after all, Irish nationalism enjoyed the support of imperialist Germany in both world wars.’

This is answered in the paragraphs above, but let’s carry out a thought experiment, which is obviously purely theoretical, to see how much the self-determination of independent capitalist states matters to Marxists.

Imagine that Britain had decided to go for the hardest of Brexits, with the ambition of setting itself up as a strategic geopolitical competitor to the European Union.  This involved the hardest of hard borders within the island and severe disruption to trade between the Irish State and the rest of the European Union as transit through Britain became impossible.  This precipitated armed republican attacks along the border on various institutions of the Northern State which were answered by the arrival of British troops to suppress the attacks.

Within the North of Ireland the arrival of these troops and armed clashes raised political tension enormously with riots and deaths in Belfast, Derry and other smaller towns.  Republican groups hailed these circumstances as another example of ‘Nuair a bhíonn deacracht ag Sasana, bíonn deis ag Éirinn’ – ‘England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity’ and launched an armed campaign against British rule.  In the Irish State the ruling parties called upon the Irish people to resist British imperialism.

The conflict between Britain and the EU cannot be confined to Ireland and the English Channel is closed to trade while there are clashes between the Royal Navy and French vessels.  To signal their full support to the Irish member state and prevent it buckling to British demands the EU sends its own troops to bolster the meagre Irish Army confronting the British.

What would be the attitude of socialists to such a march towards war?  Would we support the self-determination of Ireland and its historically justified struggle against British imperialism and partition?  Would we welcome the intervention of the EU as temporary allies in a morally justified struggle alongside the Irish capitalist state?  Certainly republicans in the North would hail the new anti-imperialist struggle and the opportunity to fight for a ‘Socialist Republic’ and commend their renewed role as defenders of the Catholic people in the North, pretty much regardless of its effectiveness.

Well, this would be an extraordinary turn of events, but Irish socialists would begin by interrogating the claims of its own rulers and state, especially its claims to be defending the democratic rights of the Irish people.  We would recall that it had viciously repressed previous armed revolts against partition and had opposed any progressive movement towards Irish unity while allying with British imperialism.

This previous collaboration would be held up as proof that there was no fundamental conflict, and certainly no fundamental difference, between British imperialism and the alliance of the Irish state with the rest of the European Union.  There would therefore be no grounds upon which the Irish working class should follow its own state in a war against Britain on behalf of one side of the imperialist rivalry between Britain and the EU, which would determine the nature of the war.

The same interests would be true for workers in Britain, who would have no interest in supporting British imperialist antagonism to the EU.  In the North of Ireland socialists would fight sectarian division, which the British state would use to bolster its own position on the island, while the Irish state would be compelled to base itself on the other side of the sectarian divide.

In summary, there are no circumstances in which Irish socialists would give up their independent organisation to support the Irish capitalist state, in or out of alliance with outside imperialist powers, for the sake of a struggle under a banner of self determination, in which neither of these has any interest.  A war that saw the European working classes kill each other for the sake of a capitalist state that has always been content with the partition of the country, while selling itself as a tax haven for US multinationals, is one that only someone lost to socialism could consider supporting.

For many years radicals in Britain confused opposition to British imperialism in Ireland and support for Irish democracy with support for the Irish republican movement.  This movement has now given up any serious pretence at struggle against British rule and accepted its role as partners in office with one of the most reactionary sectarian parties in Europe.  Some of the British and European left have learned nothing from this experience but are stupid enough to point to Ireland as justification for their support for a different capitalist state but the same imperialism they once opposed.

Back to part 2

Debating the war (2 of 3) – lessons from the past

Posted on by
8

The debate on the war on the Tendance Coatesy blog has given rise to lots of references to other past conflicts that the supporters of Ukraine spin to argue that we should now support it today.  A typical one includes the following:

‘The arguments to support Vietnam against the US and the Spanish Republic against the fascists were not that the forces leading these struggles were good. It is that expelling the US from Vietnam, and preventing the victory of Spanish fascism, were very far from a matter of indifference from a working-class, socialist point of view.’

The first problem with this is that the poster (a better word would be imposter) has argued that the forces leading the struggle in Ukraine are good and this includes the Ukrainian capitalist state and western imperialism.  As we noted in the previous post, he argues that imperialism is defending the working class.

That is the first point.

The second point is that, yes indeed, Marxists were not indifferent to the struggle against US imperialism in Vietnam or the Spanish civil war against fascism, but these show how far away his position in support of ‘Ukraine’ is from the Marxist position on these wars and the current one.

Marxists opposed US imperialism in Vietnam and worked for its defeat and opposed fascism in Spain with the same objective.  In the former, Vietnam was a colony fighting for independence, and no matter how many times supporters of Ukraine claim it was a colony they cannot claim that it still is, although one poster on Tendance Coatsey didn’t appear to understand the difference between the past and present tense.  Ukraine was and is an independent capitalist state and it is not the job of socialists to defend independent capitalist states in whatever wars they engage. Would, for example, the pro-Ukraine left still be supporting it if it still had its armed forces occupying Iraq alongside the United States?

In Spain a bourgeois democratic government was being challenged by a mass workers movement that had the potential to overthrow this government and create a workers’ state.  Supporters of Ukraine can’t point to an independent working class movement in that country, and far from wanting to overthrow the Ukrainian capitalist state they want us all to join imperialism in supporting it and ensuring it is armed to the teeth.  The difference is very clear and, absent malign motives, it is difficult to see why this is always missed and ignored.  In Spain the obvious task was to defeat the fascist insurrection, not as an alternative to overthrowing the bourgeois Republican government but as part of the same process of permanent revolution.

What Marxists did not do (or should not have done) was politically support either the bourgeois Republican Government in Spain or the Stalinist Viet Cong in Vietnam. What was necessary then and necessary now is the independent organisation of the working class that will fight against its enemies both foreign and domestic. What left supporters of Russia fail to appreciate is that if there was an independent working class movement in Ukraine it would not be supporting the Russian invasion but fighting it and it own capitalist state. The invasion by the Russian state is not about the liberation of Ukrainian workers, as its treatment of its own amply demonstrates. How this would be done would be a question of tactics but absolutely excluded is support for one’s own capitalist state and failure to organise against it on the grounds that it is doing what you want it to do already.

In Spain, it was support for the bourgeois government that ensured that the fight against fascism would not succeed, while in Vietnam the Stalinists repressed the Marxist movement and you can now visit the country as a tourist to view its capitalist society, although perhaps without seeing the sweatshops.

Vietnam was fighting a war against colonialism while in Spain the fight against fascism was to open up the possibility of socialist revolution.  In Ukraine the war was provoked by the moves by that state to join the world’s premier imperialist military alliance, and there is nothing progressive about this.  In so far as Ukrainian workers have needed to defend themselves they have needed to do so to prevent their state taking this course before the war; they need now to oppose the war in whatever way they can, and either in ‘victory’ or defeat they will need to resist the predations of western imperialism once the war is over.  The reactionary character of the Russian invasion is illustrated by the fact that winning Ukrainian workers to the second and third tasks is now immeasurably harder because of it.

‘Ukraine’ is so far away from any notion that it is involved in a progressive war that we have hundreds, if not thousands, of far right Russians fighting for it against Russia because, it appears, Russia isn’t reactionary enough for them!  And this is the ‘Ukraine’ socialists are supposed to support!

That such repugnant outcomes are advanced is the result of the lack of any class analysis by the supporters of ‘Ukraine’ who wrap the interests of the working class within its capitalist state, which itself is embraced by western imperialism, leaving the pro-Ukrainian Left supporting western imperialism and searching for spurious and fraudulent  arguments to defend themselves.

So, we get such comments that there aren’t enough imperialist troops in Ukraine to justify calling it a proxy war, when everyone and their dog knows Ukraine would have ended the war long before now without imperialist intervention.  And we get the apologetics for the prominent role of fascism by saying that they really only get a small vote, which reminds me of all the loyalist paramilitaries in the north of Ireland who don’t bother to vote for they own political fronts but for the DUP because this mainstream party adequately reflects their reactionary views.  In this, as in so much else, the pro-war left is protected by the bourgeois media, which censors the many indicators of fascist sympathies within the Ukrainian armed forces, and regurgitates the moral outrage that feeds the war and imperialist interests.

Back to part 1

Forward to part 3

Debating the war (1 of 3) – imperialism defending the workers?

Posted on by
6
‘We are Making a New World’: The fields of World War I. Copyright: © IWM. Original Source: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/20070

Over on the Tendance Coatesy blog a debate on the war has been taking place.  After over 90 comments Andrew, the host, made a short comment that finished with:

‘The whole thing is simple: they invaded. They are wrong. We should do everything to stand with Ukraine.’

So there you go. The whole argument that supporting ‘Ukraine’ does not follow inescapably from opposing the Russian invasion has passed Andrew by.  The argument about why the invasion took place, its causes, results and consequences are ignored.

What is this ‘Ukraine’ we are asked to support, and should workers support capitalist states, are questions likewise ignored, as is why the imperative to support ‘Ukraine’ also requires support for intervention by western imperialism.

Why are they wrong?  What is the harm caused and what use, if any, does Marxism have in determining this, and setting out what should be done about it?  Is there any class analysis that would distinguish our determining what is wrong from the wall to wall blitz of the capitalist media and its nauseating hypocrisy?  Or is it really so ‘simple’ that there are no differences between the socialist view and the propaganda of Western capitalism, so that supporting ‘Ukraine’ is so simple a thing that it requires no interrogation?

All these questions are avoided by ignoring the debate in the previous 90 odd comments; but the attempt to simplify things fails because it is simply a device for avoidance.  Like the bourgeois media it attempts to compel us to forget how we got here, the nature of the warring parties and their objectives; leaving us with the impression that the consequences of supporting the Ukrainian state and western imperialism will be their claims to bring about ‘freedom’.  As I have repeatedly pointed out: only one fact matters for those who proclaim support for ‘Ukraine’–there has been an invasion and we should oppose it beside everyone else who does.

One other contributor, Jim Denham, shows no fear in stating more clearly what this means in political terms, in the process showing that the emperor is naked and certainly wearing no socialist arguments.  In a comment, I accused him of believing that ‘the Ukrainian capitalist state and imperialism are defending the Ukrainian working class”.  To which he replies – “OF COURSE they effin’ well are – for their own reasons – right now. WE warn that this will not last, but the Ukranian workers are right to make use of it. What sort of fantasy world do you live in?”

Well, to answer his last point first–the sort of fantasy world in which capitalist states and imperialism doesn’t defend the working class but sends it out to fight and die on their behalf. To believe that on this question, in the midst of the largest war since 1945, involving dozens of countries and threatening to escalate into a world conflagration; that in these circumstances imperialism is defending the working class of the world is not simply very unlikely, it is impossible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but there’s been plenty of the former and a dearth of the latter.

It is always admitted that western imperialism is doing the right thing for its ‘own reasons’ but its supporters who think that the stars of imperialism and the working class have simply aligned are like believers in astrology who divine from this alignment that everything will be alright.  They don’t say what these interests of imperialism are; in other words, they don’t say what imperialism will do if it wins. Nor do they allow into their consciousness the reality that victory for imperialism will mean it will be free to enjoy the fruits of its victory, achieve its purposes, satisfy its ‘reasons’, and impose its interests.

The idea that the Ukrainian working class, which is not even independently politically organised, would, upon ‘victory’, then drop its support for the Ukrainian capitalist state and shed its nationalism is too ludicrous to believe; which is why it is never explained how it would happen.  The war and the support for it is already being employed to destroy general democratic rights, workers rights, and impose privatisation and austerity.  War is sending thousands upon thousands of working class Ukrainians to their deaths, and opposition to all this can only come from opposing it.  In this, they will face the opposition of the western pro-war Left, for whom nothing is more important, and everything is subordinated to, the ‘simple’ task of helping Ukraine win the war.

So, if imperialism was victorious, as this pro-war Left earnestly desires, what would the results be?  What reason is it fighting that apparently can accommodate, and not conflict with, the interests of the working class?

This is easy to answer, because we have history to guide us and US imperialism has been quite open about why it is spending so much money supporting Ukraine–“because Russians are dying . . . the best money we’ve spent”.  Defeat for Russia would bring forward regime change that would allow the placing of another Yeltsin stooge and subordination of Russia to western imperialism.  It would reintroduce the shock therapy that previously devastated the country, causing catastrophic levels of poverty and reduced life expectancy.

In Ukraine it would boost western imperialist interests and continue the subordination of the country that had suffered, by 2021, a reduction in Gross Domestic Product of 38 per cent from the 1990 level, when the country became independent.  This calamitous fall compares with a corresponding increase for world GDP of 75 per cent; so by 2021 the per capita GDP of Ukraine was roughly equal to that of Paraguay, Guatemala and Indonesia.

It would then mean that the real target of imperialism–China–would be surrounded and more easily isolated and vulnerable to the subordination that Russia had previously suffered and would suffer again in defeat.  All this would mean the continuation of war and devastation of the lives of the millions affected.

Opposition to this imperialist project owes nothing to sympathy or solidarity with the Russian or Chinese capitalist states but to the working classes of both countries, to the workers of others who would also suffer from the subordination of their countries, and the working class within the western imperialist countries who would be tied more firmly to their own exploitation, with the suppression of freedom that comes from imperialist oppression abroad.

Opposition to the imperialist intervention in Ukraine is not therefore on behalf of the Ukrainian state, or the Russian state, or the Chinese state.  It is for the working class of each of these countries, providing a basis for their future unity. Support for war can only promote their division.

Karl Marx, in the Communist Manifesto, argued that  ‘Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement.’ 

The momentary interests of the working class require an end to the war, while taking care of the future requires we don’t cheerlead imperialism.

But if none of this matters, if matters are simple, and if the workers of the world can rely on imperialism until perhaps they can’t, then knock yourself out and support ‘Ukraine’.

Forward to part 2

The war in Ukraine (14) – for a democratic Ukraine?

Posted on by
3

The Irish TD Paul Murphy describes Ukraine as ‘a capitalist democracy’ while the Fourth International (FI) declares that ‘Ukraine is an independent country which has preserved a regime of formal democracy. Russia has an authoritarian, repressive parliamentary system with far-right members in the Duma.’

We will ignore the significant role of fascism in Ukraine for the moment, covered up by the western media and whitewashed by the pro-war Left, while we have already noted the similarity of the political regimes in both countries.  Most importantly, we will postpone further consideration of the claimed imperative for socialists to rally to the defence of ‘democratic’ capitalist states in war, except to note that this blog is written from the north of Ireland, a part of the territory of the United Kingdom, widely regarded, and not inaccurately, as one of the premier bourgeois democracies.

During my lifetime this ‘democratic’ state has imprisoned hundreds of suspected political opponents without trial for several years while torturing a number of them.  Its armed forces have opened fire and murdered 14 peaceful civil rights demonstrators and organised right wing terrorist groups to kill political opponents, the families of political opponents and random members of the communities within which they lived.  Leon Trotsky warned against support for ‘democratic’ capitalist sates in war against their enemies as they can easily put on another mask, and it’s one reason socialists determine their position in capitalist wars not on democratic forms but on the essential class nature of the state.

Ukraine is supported by the UK, which places itself to the vanguard of supplying weapons to Ukraine.  This should immediately have rung alarm bells among British socialists that the state they sometimes claim to oppose is such a prominent supporter of the Ukrainian cause.  Britain has taken part in 83 military interventions around the world since 1945, including Kenya, Malaya, Egypt, Iraq and Libya etc. etc. According to a study reported by the New York Times on 17 February 2018, the US government ran 81 ‘overt and covert election influence operations’ in foreign countries from 1946 to 2000’ while Soviet and post-Soviet Russia ran 36 during this time.  Does the pro-Ukraine left really believe that the intervention of the UK and US in Ukraine is uniquely progressive because the Russian is uniquely reactionary?

Russia is dammed for its authoritarian regime and its brutal aggression.  But who introduced the singularly powerful Presidential system into Russia in the first place and who did not object to its first incumbent shelling the Russian parliament in October 1993 as that parliament was dissolved?  It was Boris Yeltsin that arrogated power to the President and who the United States supported in help rig subsequent elections in 1996, as we have noted before.  Russian brutal aggression in Chechnya in 1994-96 was ignored when carried out by Yeltsin, with the US supporting his re-election while the war continued.

So much for the democratic credentials of Western imperialist powers and their opposition to Russian authoritarianism and aggression!  The pro-Ukraine left attempt to separate their support for Ukraine from the Western imperialist intervention, but we have already noted the identity of their political justifications.  This Left not only explicitly refuses to oppose Western imperialist intervention, so cannot even disassociate itself from their own ruling classes hypocritically, but actually supports its armed intervention. The well-known history of western imperialism is simply ignored and given no significance, and many of the posts in this series have pointed out how preposterous this is.  But what of Ukraine itself?

Over a number of posts we have pointed to the corruption of political life in Ukraine, both at the level of the centralised state and the daily corruption faced by many of its citizens, reflected in a number of indices of the low level of (bourgeois) democracy published by Western sources.  There is no justification for the view that any of this warrants defence or support for the Ukrainian state or all the apologetics for it that the pro-war left has indulged in, even were the fundamental capitalist character of the state to be wrongly ignored.

This does not mean that the political systems in Ukraine and Russia are exactly the same, although war has made both more repressive.  The state in Russia has stood over its various oligarchs, protecting its ill-gotten gains in general, while in Ukraine the various oligarchs have competed for ‘ownership’ of the state machinery so that they can protect and expand their particular interests.  While the latter has appeared to lead to more political competition, with the outward signs of bourgeois democracy as practised in western Europe, this competition has been determined by oligarchic factions and by the growing political division between those looking west and those looking towards Russia.

The eruption of mass protests in Ukraine, particularly the Orange ‘revolution’ in 2004 and Euromaidan in 2014, have been hailed as demonstrating widespread political participation and imposition of popular sovereignty in a way that the less frequent or significant events in Russia, such as the protests against electoral malpractice between 2011 and 2013, have not.  This has been accentuated by regular electoral reversals to the incumbent President in Ukraine as opposed to the long reign of Vladimir Putin.

In fact, these developments are illustrations of the weakness and limits of popular mobilisation and the continuing power of the oligarchs throughout all these upheavals. It is they who have alternated in office, often sponsored protests and benefited from them, and who have, for example, created their own private armies to make up for the weakness of the Ukrainian state in defending their interests.  The western media is full of forecasts that the strengthening of the Ukrainian state in the war will lead to the impartial rule of law and reduction of corruption, but the incorporation of fascist units into the armed forces and the continuation of corruption in the middle of war give the lie to their rosy predictions.

So, the ‘Orange revolution’ in 2004 against corruption led to a new even more corrupt regime while the liberal support for democracy and the EU in the Maidan protests in 2013-2014 led to another oligarchic government, even containing some fascists, with Its Prime minister hand-picked by the United States. This governmnet brought the country closer to NATO despite the opposition of many ordinary Ukrainians, so that the end result was the unconstitutional overthrow of one rotten government and replacement by another that quickly became even more unpopular than the one it replaced.

In other words, the Ukrainian state and the political regimes that have presided over it have not been expressions of the popular will, with the current regime walking the country into a war having been elected to deliver peace.  The country is now irretrievably divided, yet the only response from the Zelensky regime is further anti-Russian nationalism that signals the determination to deepen the division.  Much of the pro-Ukrainian left has endorsed this with the camouflage of ‘decolonisation’, as if ethno-nationalism is something progressive, demonstrating that when the rot sets in it spreads.

Time after time the Ukrainian people voted and protested against the corruption of their state and the direction it has taken society only for these to continue under a new form and new regime. By 2019 a Gallup poll had recorded that just 9 per cent of the citizens of the country had confidence in governmental agencies, the lowest level of trust in the world. Yet this is the state that, with help from a Russian invasion, workers in Ukraine are compelled to fight for while the pro-war left in the West supports its arming to the teeth by Western imperialism. The old and disreputable lie that war will purify the country is peddled again by the bourgeoise and imperialism and once again wide sections of the Left have swallowed it whole.

In Ukraine virulent nationalism has been mobilised to cover up for the repeated failure of successive regimes to deliver on their promises, with war always the most extreme way of achieving this and often successful, at least in the short term.  The ignorant misuse of the policy of self-determination of nations argued by Lenin has been brandished by some of the western left so that it effectively joins in the defence of this rotten nationalism and the capitalist state it vindicates.

Some supporters of the British section of this movement have recently taken to boasting of their success in uniting disparate forces on the left in support of this policy but they are really far too modest, for their alliance stretches way beyond the ranks of small left groups and left social democrats. It includes the whole Starmer Labour Party, prominent ex-left supporters of NATO such as Paul Mason, and more importantly–all the western capitalist states and their bourgeois political leaderships.  For the purposes of any alternative to these capitalist states and these leaderships they are worse than useless. The rot will kill.

Back to part 13

Forward to part 15