In 2013 the President of the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) wrote in the Washington Post that ‘Ukraine is the biggest prize’ and its ‘choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents’, and therefore a critical step toward regime change in Russia. NED is an Non Governmental Organisation funded largely by the US government and intended, as its name suggests, to promote ‘democracy’ around the world. Democracy, that is, only when it is subservient to US interests and supported only in so far as these are respected.
So, we have a non-governmental organisation funded by government, claiming to be independent of it but boasting of leading the way in its foreign policy. In 2018 its National Defence Strategy defined ‘the re-emergence of long-term strategic competition’ with Russia and China as the ‘central challenge to US prosperity and security.’
As we have repeatedly noted, the position of the Left that supports Ukraine, not coincidentally, is almost identical to the position and even arguments of the governments and mass media of Western capitalist states.
Both justify their position on the basis that Ukraine is defending democracy, for itself and for others. The pro-war Left highlights ‘Russian imperialism’ and the role of Putin (but then, so does the NED), and it also supports regime change, without seeming to wonder what sort of regime change would be effected by the victory of western imperialism.
Of course, this left also claims to oppose western imperialism and will claim that it seeks a different sort of regime change. Except it has supported western imperialist intervention in support of Ukraine and in doing so has objectively supported exactly the sort of regime change that western imperialism wants. It thinks irrelevant to the cause of the war that NATO was to be enlarged so that Ukraine could potentially be the site of missiles only 5 minutes from Moscow, and wonders not what this implies for the possibility of nuclear war.
This expansion means nothing to them in understanding the motivations and objectives of any of the actors and therefore the nature of the war. No consideration of this is allowed to question why socialists should support the self determination of a state that has eagerly sought this position. Instead, the foreseeable and foreseen consequences are made irrelevant by free-floating moral concerns that Marxists reject precisely because they are divorced from the real world. Whatever ideas populate their heads, with whatever motivations, are irrelevant, and it does not matter what people call themselves or what they think they are.
Political programmes have objective effects independent of intention, which is precisely the point of seeking their implementation. It matters not only to state what you are opposed to (e.g. Russian ‘imperialism’) but what you are for (workers liberation) because this determines what means are excluded (NATO arms to Ukraine) and what objectives are to be opposed (including Ukrainian and NATO victory). Only the belief that some moral case stands above such considerations can justify support for Ukraine and of western imperialist backing for it; but if this is the case we have far departed from a materialist and Marxist understanding of politics and war.
How far we have was revealed in a Facebook exchange of views with a supporter of Ukraine who asked rhetorically ‘do people seriously believe that if Ukraine did not get weapons from NATO then the war would be brought to a peaceful end?’ As if with weapons to Ukraine it would! He states that ‘the people of Ukraine need and deserve our support and reveal a level of empathy, of basic humanity that appears sadly lacking in those who see the main problem as Ukraine receiving the means for the continuing existence of their independent state.’
We are asked for ‘empathy’ and ‘basic humanity’ so that weapons can be supplied that will wound and kill humans who must, it seems, not be deserving of empathy or considerations of ‘basic humanity’. And all this because we must support the provision of weapons so that the people of Ukraine receive ’the means for the continuing existence of their independent state.’
But since when did capitalist states belong to their people? Who is the ‘their’ in ‘their independent state’? What sort of state is the state of Ukraine? The same one that walked its people into a war through its pursuit of NATO membership against the wishes often of a majority of its people? How independent is Ukraine now, when it relies completely on western imperialism in order to continue the war? How ‘independent’ will it be when the war is over and it becomes subsumed under the imperialist alliance with an economy destroyed, millions of its people in exile and up to its neck in debt to western countries and their vulture financial institutions?
The only explanation for such stupidity is the belief in vacuous moralistic claims divorced from the real world that none of the parties at war are themselves stupid enough to believe.
These moralistic illusions rest on one event–the Russian invasion on 24 February last year. This is meant to be not only the grounds to explain everything but also the explanation itself, and by itself the imperative to support the Ukrainian state. But of course, one event explains nothing, requiring explanation itself, never mind mandating the correct socialist response. Even a series of events are in themselves no explanation of anything, but simply a series of happenings.
The pro-war left is compelled to go beyond this event themselves by insisting that the issue is one of Russian imperialism and self-determination of Ukraine, although by deriving their understanding solely from the Russian invasion they are unable even to account for this event, previous Ukrainian actions, or the subsequent actions of Western imperialism. And this is before we even consider just what is meant by Russian imperialism; the nature of the Ukrainian state and its actions and policy; and the strategy and actions of western imperialism before the invasion.
These latter issues have been dealt with before; it should be enough to note here that we face a proxy war by western imperialism, through the Ukrainian capitalist state against the Russian capitalist state, for us to determine that the working class has no interest in supporting either. The actions of all these actors are selectively presented by the pro-war left in order to bolster their pre-determined support for Ukraine, with the emphasis on the mental state and ideological declarations of Putin filling in for the lack of empirical support for the victimhood of the Ukrainian state, the progressive role of western imperialism and just why the Russians decided they needed to invade when they hadn’t done so before when it might have been easier to do so.
The point then of this series of posts has been, not to argue that the facts and events enumerated in themselves determine the correct approach to the war, but that they rebut the pro-war left’s support for Ukraine and western imperialism. This support is based not on Marxist analysis of the political forces but a litany of events that are meant to present a tidy narrative that comfortably brings one to express sympathy and solidarity with the ‘Ukrainian people’; without real life complications of people being divided into classes and ‘Ukraine’ being constituted by a state that, being a state, is actually separate from its people.
Along the road of this narrative the character of the Ukrainian state does not appear on the stage, and its manipulation of the Ukrainian people is absent. The character that is on stage is of the Ukrainian ‘people’, which substitutes for the many characters of the classes that inhabit Ukraine, including the Ukrainian working class, that might, if given the floor, express its own interests. The character of western imperialism simply arrives at the climax with sword and shield to defend the actor called ‘Ukraine’, although this role too is largely hidden. The Western saviour simply gives his sword and shield to the Ukrainian with the implication that they are to fight to the death, either theirs, the Russians or both.
This type of dramatic theatre, descended from the ancient Greeks, takes the audience from point A to point B, from invasion to support for ‘the resistance’, along the way filling it with emotions and sensations, of sympathy and outrage, earnestly hoping for a purgative resolution, a sort of happy ending for those suffering, in so far as one can be envisaged.
To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht; when asking whether one should feel the torment of someone suffering, he had his character respond that to do so ‘I must know why he is suffering’. Knowing why requires more than awareness that there was an invasion; that people are dying; that a perverted version of Lenin’s slogan of self-determination is the right answer, and that the biggest warmongers on the planet–out of character–are somehow doing the right thing.
Series Concluded
Back to part 14
Sráid Marx 
Last year, the UN in its review set out various rules about what continued action would cause it to propose action/sanctions against states, this year. On the basis of those rules, the actions of the Israeli state, over the last year clearly qualified. In fact, pretty much everything that is correctly levelled at the actions of Russia in Ukraine, applies to the actions of Israel in Palestine, whose territory it has violently occupied for more than 75 years, and as I write it is bombing and shelling in Jenin, including on hospitals, which is just one of the many war crimes it has and continues to commit.
Russia appears on the list, but as an Al Jazeera journalist pointed out to the UN spokesperson, Israel doesn’t. One of the arguments of the pro-war Left has been that “Ukraine” has the “right” to seek weapons from wherever they can obtain them, so as to defend itself. The arguments used to justify that, as you have set out are spurious, and certainly have nothing to do with Marxism.
Yet, many of those supporting “Ukraine”, are not making the same argument in respect of Palestine. Some of them, such as the AWL actually proclaim themselves to be “Zionists”, so that is not surprising, but for those that do not, there is still an ominous silence in making the same moral judgement, and arriving at the same practical conclusions, when it comes to Palestine. So, for example, using the same logic and moral imperative, they should support the “Palestinians”, which effectively, and using the same argument used in Ukraine to support the Ukrainian capitalist state, and corrupt government of Zelensky, means Hamas in Gaza, for example, should be encouraged to also get weapons from wherever they can get them to reclaim Palestine, and push the Zionist state out entirely.
So, would they then be welcoming China, Russia, Iran, Turkey and so on providing Hamas and other Palestinian fighters with the latest weaponry, air-defence systems to shoot down Israeli jets and so on? How quickly do they think that would result in a rapid escalation of violence with an Israeli state that ha sone of the largest stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons on the planet, and is run by a regime of people whose fascist credentials are at least as good as those of Putin? Do, they think that such an escalation of violence in any way represents an advance in the interests of Arab and Jewish workers in the region, or workers globally?
Of course, it doesn’t. which is why Marxists would never support such a course of action, and why they also should not in Ukraine.
Of course, even pointing that out would get you expelled from Starmer’s Labour Party, because he as with the opportunist Left that supported his witch-hunt using the fake arguments on anti-Semitism, have equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, so that criticising the war crimes of the Zionist state, is now equated with attacking jews, and so anti-Semitism. The truth, of course is the reverse. It means that Starmer’s Labour Party, a well as being racist and Islamophobic, is also anti-Semitic. If anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism, then, similarly Zionism = Jewish, and so any crimes committed by Zionism are then equated with being committed by all Jews, or at least makes them responsible for them.
That is clearly nonsense, because a small minority of Jews in Israel do not support the actions of its Zionist state, but more significantly, unlike other nation states, the large majority of Jews do not live in Israel, and so can even less be held responsible for the actions of the Zionist state. Yet, that is the logic that Starmer and the opportunist Left position leads to from equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. That is why, they always have to find some excuse to act as apologists for the Zionist state, and treat its war crimes and other actions differently to those of every other state, which is itself anti-Semitic.
Speaking about a morality play means asking what is the lesson about morality to be inferred. Imagine this everyday scenario, there is a car accident, some people are in hospital and might even die. You learn that your partner could have been the cause of the accident, your partner drove away from the scene and told you about it. Should you report them to the legal authorizes?
In theory you think a person driving away from the scene of a serious accident is doing something wrong, in short you believe in what are called precepts or moral and legal rules. In practice you love your partner so much you are ready to break free of the precepts and moral rules that in general you believe are sound and not report your partner them to the legal authorities.
The choice before you then is following a rule of behaviour you think is right and not following the moral rule. The dilemma is a common one, it might apply to a friend for example who does not pay their taxes and you do because you think paying your taxes is a good rule to follow.
I will call the the viewpoint of always following the rules, moral legalism. I will call the viewpoint that it is legitimate not to always follow some rule, moral prudentialism.
Disagreement about moral action has been a running sore not just when it comes to
discussions of moral action SEEMINGLY FOREVER, the philosopher E. Kant is usually mentioned as one who argued in favour of a rule based morality, the famous categorical imperative is said to be the basis of a consistent rules based morality, however we can find similar rules based systems in respect to pre modern theories of natural law. Think for example of the ten commandments.
In respect to political theory, it was argued by Leo Strauss that Machiavelli broke with the natural law tradition, especially as it was understand in CATHOLIC tradition, the tradition of Thomas Aquinas for instance. It was said that he was a man who worried more about the fate of his Polity than he did about the fate of his Soul. There is a book that I particularly like by E. Levinas called Totality and Infinity, the opening pages of that work of philosophy are beautifully presented that could easily pass as an outline of Machiavellian thought:
” Everyone will readily agree that it is the highest importance to know whether we are not duped by morality. Does not lucidity, the mind’s openness upon the true consist in catching sight of the permanent possibility of war? The state of war suspends morality; it divests the eternal institutions and obligations of their eternity and rescinds ad interim the unconditional imperatives. In advance its shadow falls over the actions of men. War is not only one of the ordeals-the greatest- of which morality lives; it renders morality derisory. The art of foreseeing war and of winning it by every means- politics-is henceforth enjoined as the very exercised of reason. Politics is opposed to morality ,as philosophy to naiveté. We do not need obscure fragments of Heraclitus to prove that being reveals itself as war to philosophical thought, that war does not only affect it as the most patent fact, but as the very patency, or the truth of the real……The trail by force is the test of the real. But violence does not consist so much in injuring and annihilating persons as in interrupting their continuity, making them play roles in which they no longer recognise themselves, making them betray not only commitments but their own substance, making them carry out actions that will destroy every possibility for action. Nor only modern war but every war employs arms that turn against those who wield them. It establishes and order from which no one can keep his distance; nothing henceforth is exterior. War does not manifest exteriority and the other as other; it destroys the identity of the same.”
Totality and Infinity is a truly unforgettable book, four decades I wrote several essays about it when taking a masters degree in Continental philosophy. The essays were of course muddled and worthless so I have been obliged to read it again. The argument is that the tradition of western philosophy has been secretly on the side of politics defined as calculating the benefit of war.
The ‘ visage of being that shows itself in war is fixed in the concept of Totality, which dominates Western Philosophy. Individuals are reduced to being bearers of forces that command them unbeknown to themselves. The meaning of individuals, indivisible outside of this totality is derived from the totality’.
In the end Totality and Infinity is a complicated injunction on behalf of peace with no dependence on war. Thus you might dismiss the entire elaboration as a restoration of the moral viewpoint : ` The moral consciousness can sustain the mocking gaze of the political man only if the certitude of peace dominates the evidence of war. Such a certitude is not obtained by a simple play of antitheses. The peace of empires issued from war rest on war. It does not restore to the alienated beings their lost identity. For that a primordial and original relation with being is needed.`
The argument for now is what sort of rule of law or principle that is not in fact also a tacit vindication of the dependency on war to be applied by critics and opponents of this conflict. It would seem that the idea of the self- determination of peoples is not a rule or law that is likely to result in a lasting peace. As I see things if one moral or legal rule is found to be problematic one can search hard to find another one to put in its place. It is safe to say that the world community has found a substitute to find a substitute for self-determination. The United Nations seems to be dependent on the principle of self determination. A second approach might be to think that there should always be exemptions to any rule permitted for some people or nations in some circumstances, to deliberate about conflicts on the basis of a prudential type of political morality that looks closely at the circumstances of the conflict without a pre judgment in favour of self determination. Or we can can drop all the pretence of acting on precept and by following dome legal or moral rule and embrace the philosophy of war : To the victor goes the spoils without reserve.
The Ten Commandments is not a rules based morality, but a class based morality. Look at the Bible, and the full text, and you will see, for example, that a master slave owner is treated differently even in relation to murder, or causing death to a slave.