Statement by

Communist Labour Party of Turkey/Leninist

Several “communist” parties who have come together under the name “European Communist Action” organised a conference “in order to evaluate the experiences and conclusions of the communists during the second year of the imperialist war in Ukraine.” 

They did well. They have once again given us the opportunity to see that they are doing their best to cover up the most important facts about the war, the real cause of the war, its class character and their political line in order to curry favour with their imperialist masters.

Anyone who wants to see an example of how a person, party or group of parties can claim to act in the name of the world proletariat and in reality serve their imperialist masters can look at the joint declaration of the “European Communist Action.” There is no need for anything else. In revolutionary communist literature, acting in the name of communism and serving the bourgeoisie is called social chauvinism. 

The “European Communist Action” (hereafter we will refer to this social chauvinist group only as “ECA”) is a social chauvinist group that acts in the name of communism but in reality serves its imperialist masters, especially the US, NATO and the EU. They are nothing more than a “group” because there is not the slightest that they represent a “movement.”

In order for the reader to better understand the political character of this group, some brief information about their past is in order. 

Except for one or two of them, the parties that make up the “ECA” operated under the name “European Communist Initiative” (ECI) from 2013 until September 2023. They formed part of the ongoing conference of the worldwide meeting of communist and workers’ parties (IMCWP). After the war in Ukraine, neither at the IMCWP conferences in Havana and Izmir, nor at the ECI meetings led by the KKE, could they issue a joint statement on the war. They could not issue it because they did not have a common view, a common ground on this most fundamental issue. There was not much the KKE could do in the IMCWP, but it could well “throw its weight” within the ECI. And so it did. The ECI shamefully ended its life in September 2023 with a teleconference via Zoom. After the KKE presentation, it was hastily declared that the ECI had completed its mission and they pulled the plug! 

Thus, in order to get rid of “the important ideological and political differences … which creates insurmountable obstacles for the continuation of the ECI,” a new, narrower organisation was formed in line with the views of the KKE: The European Communist Action (ECA)!

The global civil war waged by the USA and other imperialists against the world proletariat and working classes, the oppressed peoples of the world in general, and the war waged by the Russian army against imperialism and fascism in particular, have caused the path of collaboration with the bourgeoisie to mature and forced these social reformist parties to reveal their true social chauvinist faces. They could no longer hide their true bourgeois collaborationist faces. This was the inevitable result of the war. This social reformist, compromising, collaborationist boil matured as a result of the war and was revealed to us in the form of social chauvinism.

The joint statement issued by the parties that came together as the “ECA” on the 2nd anniversary of the war was a document that showed how these parties, in the name of “communism” sided with their imperialist and reactionary states and governments. Now let’s have a look at that statement.

Is The War In Ukraine An Imperialist War?

“Marxism, which does not degrade itself by stooping to the philistine’s level, requires an historical analysis of each war” (Lenin). That is to say, if a party is to express an opinion on an emerging war, it has to make a concrete evaluation of that war; it has to analyze, in a concrete manner that relies on evidence, the situation in the warring countries, but also class relations at the global level and the general conditions of the imperialist epoch. 

The “ECA” answers “yes” to the above question without hesitation. It claims that this war is an imperialist war and asserts that siding with one of the parties, for example the Russian army, means siding with its own government, its own bourgeoisie. And what is the concrete evidence that the “ECA” puts forward for this claim? There is no concrete evidence, only abstract claims, nothing more than the idea that “If I say so, it is so.” Now let us analyse these claims from their statement.

In article 1 of the statement of the “ECA” we find the following “concrete” assessment of the cause of the war:

“1. The imperialist war in Ukraine has led to thousands of deaths. Millions were forced to leave their homes and country. This imperialist war is an extension of the conditions that emerged after the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and which have tragic consequences for the working classes all over the world. It was the overthrow of socialism that prepared the ground for this war, in which the blood of two peoples who worked together for decades to build a new society on socialist foundations, who fought shoulder to shoulder against fascism and brought it to its knees, is being shed.”

The only worthwhile opinion (if one can call it that) among all this empty talk, which is otherwise presented without a single piece of concrete evidence, is this: The war results from the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, of socialism. “It was the overthrow of socialism that prepared the ground for this war.”

To say this is to say nothing. They put forward no idea about this war or about its causes. Because the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the destruction of socialism led not only to this war but to countless wars, to the unbridled aggression of the US-NATO-British imperialists in countless parts of the world. Under the conditions of the existence of the Soviet Union, these imperialists and their aggressive military organisation NATO could not dare to attack any country as they pleased. The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the destruction of socialism encouraged them in their aggressive policies and they started to carry out attacks everywhere. The wars in Iraq I and II, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Israel’s aggression in the Middle East, etc., are all “an extension of the conditions that emerged after the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and which have tragic consequences for the working classes all over the world.”

So, to say that the war is “the result of the collapse of socialism and the conditions that emerged after this collapse” is to say nothing about this war. What we need, however, is, to use Lenin’s words, “a concrete evaluation of each war separately.”

It is obvious that the parties that make up the “ECA” are in a state of complete confusion. On the one hand, they are trying to curry favour with their imperialist masters, but on the other hand, they are trying to do it in a way that is compatible with the word “communist” in their name. According to the “ECA,” there is an imperialist war, but they cannot call Russia, one of the parties to the war, “imperialist.” That is to say, on the one side there are the familiar imperialist states; on the other side―at least for now―there is Russia, which is not yet imperialist.

We come to point 2 of the statement, where glaring confusion and demagoguery reign. Before that, however, we should make an intermediate note. There is obviously no unanimity of thought within the “ECA” on the definition of Russia. While one section defines Russia as “imperialist”―we know that the KKE is of this opinion―another section, for example, the TKP (the Communist Party of Turkey), opposes this definition. As an intermediate way, as a ground for compromise, they have come together in the freakish idea that “there is an imperialist war, but this is an imperialist war in which one of the parties is not an imperialist.” Now we can continue with Article 2 as it is.

“2. The most important factor fuelling the conflict on this ground is the fight among capitalists for the plundering of all underground and surface resources, the wealth produced by the workers. At the root of this conflict lies the competition and contradictions within the imperialist system as a whole, which in this case were expressed in the expansion of NATO and the EU to the east and the aspiration of the Russian bourgeoisie to establish new forms of organisations of capitalist states in the territories of the former USSR.”

What do we understand here that the phrase of “the aspiration of the Russian bourgeoisie to establish new forms of organisations of capitalist states in the territories of the former USSR.” Nothing! Suppose the Russian bourgeoisie were to wish to establish new forms of state organisation in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan or any other “territory of the former USSR.” What would the result be? Is that why they went to war with the USA-NATO and others? Or, on the contrary, did these imperialists decide to wage war against the “Russian bourgeoisie” because of this desire? As a concrete analysis of the war, they heap of platitudes about “the desires of the Russian bourgeoisie” before the working class and nothing else.

There is an “imperialist war”; this is true. But from the point of view of the US-NATO-UK-European imperialists, this is an imperialist war. From the point of view of the world proletariat, labouring peoples, socialist states, and global revolutionary forces, it is an anti-imperialist, anti-fascist war.

This war has arisen out of the general conditions in which the imperialist-capitalist system, that is, imperialism, especially the USA, has been living in the last twenty to twenty-five years. But what are the main lines of today’s general conditions of the imperialist epoch?

To put it in the most general terms, in the last quarter of a century, the imperialist-capitalist system has entered a process of decline, of collapse, of the loss of its world hegemony. The entire historical development of the capitalist mode of production and the fact that the productive forces have reached the point where they cannot fit into the shells of this mode of production and the struggles of the world proletariat and labouring peoples, the poor masses against capitalism and the world bourgeoisie, which have turned into revolts, uprisings, and revolutions, have formed the basic lines and general conditions of this process.

Our era is the era of the collapse of imperialism and social revolutions. NATO itself has determined that our century is the “century of uprisings” and has started to shape all its economic and military policies according to this prediction. To reverse this process, the imperialists, led by the USA and their military organisation NATO, have launched a war against the world working class, working peoples, socialist countries and revolutionary-democratic popular governments oriented towards socialism. This is a global civil war between the world bourgeoisie and the world proletariat, socialist countries, labouring, poor, oppressed peoples. Without understanding these features of our epoch and the global civil war arising from these features, it is impossible to understand either the wars in different countries or the unbridled policy of aggression of the imperialists against the territory of Russia.

The imperialists, i.e. the USA and other imperialist-reactionary states, which surround it like little jackals, are doing their utmost to erase all signs and every trace of socialism from the face of the earth. They are preparing to attack not only Russia but also Cuba and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and many other countries. 

Russia, whose relations with socialist and socialist-orientated revolutionary-democratic popular governments are close to the Soviet-era line of foreign relations, was an obstacle to these aims. Social chauvinists will not like it, but such were the relations between Cuba and Russia, such are the relations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Such are the relations with China and with Venezuela, where US imperialism wants to bring its henchmen to power. Needless to say, the relations between Cuba, Venezuela, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and Russia were the greatest obstacle to the destructive economic, financial, technical, and military policies of the imperialists on these countries. This is a concrete, verifiable fact.

Syria is a more typical example. It is a well-known and recognised fact that if it were not for the active support of Russia, Syria today would have become a farm for the production and export to the world of religious fascist murderous hordes. For the imperialists, but especially for the US and British imperialists to consolidate their domination in the Middle East, the capture of Syria through Turkey and the religious fascist gangs was extremely important. The whole world knows that the Syrian war is not over. Russia, with its active military intervention, has frustrated the ambitions of the imperialists and their subcontractors in the region.

Russia’s military and economic activity and policy on the African continent has also been one of the biggest obstacles to the imperialists’ plans for the African continent. The poor, labouring peoples of the African countries, who expelled French imperialism from their lands with the direct help of Russia, and indirect help of China, are the peoples who know and express this fact best.

Did USSR Become A Thing Of The Past? Why Is The USA Attacking Russia?

All these concrete facts and conditions constitute important reasons why the imperialists want to attack Russia, despite the powers in the Kremlin, which wants to get on “good terms” with them, compromise with them and even join NATO. But we have not yet touched upon the most important reason, the decisive reason for the imperialist aggression against Russia. That reason is this: despite the bloody counter-revolution of 1991-93 and the significant restoration of capitalism, imperialists, first and foremost the USA, do not believe that socialism in Russia has been completelyuprooted. We will give evidence of this. 

But first, we must emphasise the following: Whether the USA and its imperialist followers are mistaken in these beliefs and thoughts is not important for now. What is important is that they have this belief and that it motivates them to attack Russia in the first place.

They believe that socialism in Russia can be completely, uprooted from the life, culture, language, literature and art, habits, and aspirations of the people to disappear without a trace only through the dismemberment and destruction of Russia as a state.

The imperialists, unlike their henchmen, are neither fools nor slackers. They are accustomed to “taking the bull by the horns”; they leave nothing to chance. That is why, unlike the social-chauvinists, who believe more than anyone else and before anyone else that socialism in the former Soviet territories has been consigned to history, the imperialists cannot rest until they see Russia disintegrate and disappear as a state.

If the social-chauvinists who make up the “ECA” want proof, let them look at the article entitled “Preparing for the Final Collapse of the Soviet Union and the Dissolution of the Russian Federation.”

Korkut Boratav explains the importance of this article in “Sol Haber,” the organ of the TKP, which hosted the “ECA” meeting:

“In the CIA, in the Pentagon, such texts are kept away from casual observers as ‘top secret‘documents. This Policy Note, on the other hand, bears the signature of Luke Coffey, a senior fellow at Hudson, and is publicly available.

The Hudson Institute’s track record, however, suggests that the document should be taken seriously. It is a neo-con organisation founded in 1960 by Herman Kahn, a major contributor to the US nuclear war doctrine… It is closely aligned with the Republican Party.

The views in the aforementioned Policy Note are in line with the intentions of Biden, who called for ‘regime change’ in Russia after the war in Ukraine. It probably also sheds light on the current, functional scenarios of the US state institutions.”

The article begins with the following paragraph:

“The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the resignation of Mikhail Gorbachev as president of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the beginning of the collapse of the USSR, but not the collapse itself. Although the legal personality of the USSR ceased to exist after 1991, the collapse of the USSR is still ongoing today. The two Chechen wars, the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, the on-off border conflicts between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and the Second Karabakh War between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 2020 are just a few examples. The Soviet Union is still collapsing today.”

That is to say, it is irrelevant whether this is actually the case or not―the US does not believe that the USSR has finally collapsed. It sees the problem as a process and thinks that the “process of collapse” is continuing. But this process is not over and Russia’s defeat in Ukraine (taking Russia’s defeat as a certainty) will only be the second stage of the process, but still not its end.

The article continues with the following prediction:

“Future historians, however, are likely to describe Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 as the most important, if not the last, moment in the collapse of the Soviet Union. We do not know when the war in Ukraine will end, but it will probably mark the dissolution of the Russian Federation (the legal successor to the Soviet Union) as it is known today. It is undeniable that Russia’s economy has suffered a major blow, its military capacity has been destroyed and its influence in the regions where it once held sway has diminished.”

There is a lovely proverb in Turkish; “the hungry chicken dreams that it is in the feed shed.” The goals listed in the article as “predictions” do not go beyond the dreams of a hungry chicken. We know that the US and all other imperialist states pin all their hopes on a decisive defeat of Russia in the war. The authors of the policy note have the same hopes. It is not our business to make predictions about the future of the war. But we can say, at least for the time being, to the chagrin of the social chauvinist “ECA” community, the following: The war is not going at all according to the imperialists’ wishes. Fascist Ukraine is being defeated―and we say “for the time being” with caution.

It is true that the war between Russia and the NATO-US-UK-EU imperialists―not to mention the jackals around the big tigers―is a turning point in history. The Leninists made and explained this determination on the very second day of the war. However, this break will not be in the direction the imperialists hope for, that the USSR will be buried in history, but in the opposite direction! We see the signs of it everywhere.

To avoid misunderstandings, we must also say the following: Our words should not be taken to suggest that the USSR will be revived. The USSR, as a product of certain historical conditions, was an example of one form of socialism. It would not be correct to say in advance what the new form will be like. On the contrary, we have no doubt that socialism will flourish on the territory of the USSR again and in a much stronger form than before. We say this not as an expression of “faith,” but in the sense that all traces of socialism have not and cannot be erased from the territory of the USSR, whereas the process is now beginning to reverse itself. 

All the developments we are witnessing now are the practical realisation of the ideas put forward by Engels in “The Role of Force inHistory.” Force is being defeated by economic development in the forward evolution of history. That is all.

We can now come to the most summarised answer to our question in the subtitle. The USSR did not and could not become history. The attacks on Russia by the US and other imperialists aim to bring this process, which they consider unfinished, to an end.

The exploitation of Russia’s natural resources, raw materials, and other riches certainly whet the imperialists’ appetite. But this is not even worth mentioning when compared to the great goal of destroying socialism without a trace.

Imperialism and the Fascist Movement

These same general conditions of the imperialist-capitalist system explain why the imperialist states, which boast of being the “cradle of democracy,” organise neo-nazi fascists in Europe and religious fascists in Asia and elsewhere all over the world. There is a direct link between imperialism, monopoly capitalism, and fascism―not just an indirect one. This is known and we assume that the parties forming the “ECA,” which are “communist” in name and social chauvinist in reality, would also accept this characterization.

To put it in a way that the component parties of the “ECA” can understand, you can no longer explain the movements and policies of the US, UK, and EU imperialists without pointing to fascism and the fascist movement. The reverse is also true. You cannot explain the existence and actions of fascists, neo-nazis, and religious fascist gangs, in today’s common parlance, without pointing to the US and the imperialists around them and analysing their relationship.

In other words, if there is a struggle against US imperialism or any other imperialist state, if there is a war, it is inevitable that it is a war or struggle against fascism. This is a trend that results from the general conditions in which imperialism finds itself.

We can see concrete expressions of this in the ongoing struggles and wars against these imperialists in Syria, Libya, Africa, Iraq, Ukraine, etc. Of course, we take into account that each country has its own specific conditions. In Ukraine, the force actually fighting on the field on behalf of the imperialists is the Ukrainian army as well as the neo-nazi fascists who are intertwined with this army. It is almost impossible to separate them. 

We are witnessing a different form of this in Syria and other forms in Iraq and Africa. Nevertheless, all these examples have one thing in common. This is that in almost all cases fascist gangs are being mobilised for war together with the imperialist armies, often in front of them. This intertwining also gives the war against imperialism an antifascist character and vice versa.

It is known that in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, in countless countries of the African continent, the imperialists themselves organise, arm, and provide all kinds of material and technical support to religious fascist murderers such as al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and ISIS. It has been proven beyond dispute that the fascists called neo-nazis in Europe, the Banderites, were organised, trained, and armed by the secret services of the European imperialist states and then sent to Ukraine.

The social-chauvinists who gathered under the name of “ECA” have not a word to say on this subject. Since they have nothing to say, the only thing they can do is to portray the presence of fascists in Ukraine as something small and insignificant and to divert the attention of the world proletariat and working people.

In article 6 of their statement, they do this as follows:

“Although the Russian leadership claims that its main objective in continuing the war is the denazification of the region and aims to break the siege by the Western bloc, it is clear that the main motivation behind is the protection of the interests of the Russian capitalist class in the wider region.”

They present their abstract claims as evidence like this, whereas they should be presenting concrete evidence.

It is true that “the Russian leadership claims that its main objective in continuing the war is the denazification of the region and aims to break the siege by the Western bloc,” and it says this at every opportunity. What concrete evidence do you have to refute this? Does the Russian leadership not send neo-nazis to their ancestors in the sky, but protect them? Instead of producing evidence, the “ECA” offers as evidence the empty phrase. “No, the Russian leadership is motivated by something else.” When a person has nothing to say on a serious issue, he tries to fill the pathetic void of ideas with such words.

Our century, as recognised by NATO, is the “century of uprisings”; it is a revolutionary age. Since the Seattle uprising in 1999, revolts and uprisings against imperialism, fascism, and capitalism have not stopped. In order to stop this decadent process, US imperialism launched a “Global Civil War” against the proletariat and working peoples of the world with the “Twin Towers” provocation on 11 September 2001. (Trump recently announced that the destruction of the Twin Towers was the work of the USA).

In this global civil war, fascist gangs are one of the most important military instruments of the imperialists. The imperialist states and their secret services could continue the global civil war by using these fascist gangs against the working class and popular masses. And so they did. We know that the murderous hordes called Al-Qaeda are US-made and were organised to fight against the Soviets. ISIS was also organised by the US, British and French imperialists. The Muslim Brotherhood gang, which is active in the Middle East, in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and many other Arab countries, was the work of the British imperialists against communism decades ago. Not to mention Al-Shabaab, which carries out bloody operations on behalf of imperialism on the African continent. The revolutionary democratic forces of Africa have realised that to get rid of this scourge, it is necessary to expel French imperialism from Africa and they are now doing just that.

It has just been revealed that the fascist party AfD in Germany has been holding meetings with the German intelligence services. In Ukraine, the Bandera fascists, which the social chauvinist “ECA” tries to downplay in order to deceive the people, have taken over the entire state, are organised and armed as a separate army, and exist as an officially recognised force intertwined with the Ukrainian army. Bandera has been declared a “national hero” by the fascist government in Ukraine.

We will not deal with how and what massacres were committed by the Bandera fascists under the banner of Hitler’s fascism. It is enough to know that the head of these fascists, Semyon Bandera, is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Soviet Jews. This rogue fascist, whom the “ECA” never uttered a word about, collaborated with Hitler’s army against the USSR and fought against the Red Army.

Another concrete fact, which the “ECA” people do not mention in a single word, is that the children, grandchildren, and followers of the Bandera fascist came to power in 2014 through the “Maydan coup” organised by the USA at a cost of 5 billion dollars. Neither “ECA” nor anyone else can explain the Ukraine-Russia war or the conditions that prepared it without mentioning the US-organised “Maidan coup.”

Instead of discussing these conditions that led to the war, the “Communist” parties, which have assembled under the name of “ECA” tell us the following tale:

“The war being waged on the territory of Ukraine, is not an anti-imperialist or anti-fascist war, as claimed by the leadership of capitalist Russia and its apologists, a fact that our parties have pointed out from the beginning and has been proven many times in the past two years.”

What has been “proved many times in two years”? That this war is not antifascist? Or, on the contrary, that this war is being waged on the Ukrainian side by fascists themselves, that the Ukrainian fascists in the war are day by day revealing their real fascist identity? Not only Ukrainian fascists, but also European fascists, even Latin American fascists―Colombian fascists, for example, have taken part in this war, as evidenced by the flags and symbols they carry and the tattoos they have carved on their bodies.

A quote from a news item by the organ of the TKP, which is a component of the “ECA” group, summarizes this point best. The news is accompanied by a photograph. The title of the article is “Neo-Nazis in Ukraine: ‘Our goal is fascist dictatorship’” A short part of the news report is as follows: “According to a report published in Global Research, neo-Nazis from countries such as Sweden, Bulgaria, and Hungary have arrived in Ukraine and are organising troops to fight against the eastern regions of Ukraine.

“The Swedes fighting in the Azov battalion, which has flags inspired by Nazi symbols, state that their goal is a ‘white Ukraine.’ The Swedish media organisation The Local reports the following about the battalion, which includes four Swedish militants:

“‘Azov is a special unit of about 300 soldiers, including volunteers from Europe. Although it was set up by the Ukrainian government, it is not part of the Ukrainian army and is led by ultra-nationalists. Anton Shekhotsov, a Ukrainian political scientist who researches ultra-nationalist movements, emphasises that these groups are not fighting for a democratic Ukraine, but for a fascist dictatorship.’ 

“This confirms the existence of neo-Nazi elements, which mainstream Western media outlets have ignored since the beginning of the crisis in Ukraine, and that these groups are working with the US-backed Kiev government and the military” (Sol Haber 02.08.2014)

This article was written ten years ago after the fascist Maidan coup. Imagine the situation now! Need we say more? So, according to these “communists,” the war against those who fight for a “white Ukraine” carrying fascist flags and symbols, who “fight not for a democratic Ukraine, but for a fascist dictatorship,” against gangs, not just a few individuals or groups, but gangs gathered from all over the world, who have become a full component of the Ukrainian army, who are supported and armed by the USA, who leads them to war against Russia and the Russian population in Ukraine, is not antifascist.

Well, if the war against a fascist state, its army, and its fascist government is not an anti-fascist war, please, “communists” of the “ECA” tell us how and against whom an anti-fascist war is fought. 

These communist parties advise us to remain neutral in the war between gangs fighting in the service of the USA and other imperialists, for their interests, under fascist flags and symbols, on the one hand, and soldiers carrying red flags on tanks and using the symbols of communism on their uniforms, on the other. Why? Because they have said from the beginning that this is not an anti-fascist war! No, such nonsense, such rubbish, cannot be out of ignorance; it can only be out of love for being a servant to the bourgeoisie. 

There is no doubt that this war is an anti-fascist, anti-imperialist war. In the two years that have passed, this fact has been proved day in and day out by hundreds and thousands of events and facts.

Donetsk And Lugansk People’s Republics

Just as a criminal turns his head away from the scene of a crime, the parties united under the name “ECA” turn their heads away and whistle about the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. There is not a word about these two People’s Republics in their statements. However, you cannot say a single intelligent word about the Russian-Ukrainian war without discussing the uprising of the people of Donbas against the fascist Maidan coup and the declaration of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics on 7 May 2014 as a result of this uprising.

They cannot do this, and that is precisely why, instead of establishing the relation between the general conditions of imperialism in our epoch and the uprising of the working and labouring classes of Donbas against the fascist Maidan Coup and the proclamation of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics as a result of this uprising, they resort to this tautology:

“5. The protagonists of the war are not the people of the two countries but their capitalist classes. Presenting the war as a war between Ukraine and Russia obscures the real actors of the war and makes it difficult to understand its class character. The ongoing war is being waged between the Russian capitalist class and its allies on the one hand and the Ukrainian capitalist class, the USA, the EU and NATO on the other hand.”

Even the imperialists occasionally admit that the Russian-Ukrainian war did not start in February 2022, but in fact in 2014, yet the “ECA” does not say a word about it. Why is that? The reason is simple: Because if they mentioned these two People’s Republics, they would at least feel obliged, because of the word “communist” in their name, to take the side of these two People’s Republics which have a socialist orientation and are led by communists. Instead, they find it best to look the other way and ignore these two People’s Republics. These so-called “materialists” think that by ignoring them, the People’s Republics will also disappear.

However, one of the most important, albeit not the only reason for the Russian-Ukrainian war, was the declaration of these two People’s Republics in the Donbas region, led by the communists. For the imperialists, who had been wondering whether the USSR had been buried in history, the fact that these two People’s Republics had raised the flag of socialism in the territory of the former USSR was a nightmare that they could not bear.

Fascist Ukraine, with the unlimited support of the imperialists, put all its strength into action to destroy these two People’s Republics. The fascist Ukrainian government mobilised all the fascist forces at its disposal, released fascists in prisons, and put them at the head of the fascist Azov battalions. Here are some words of Andriy Biletsky, known as the “White Leader,” who was put in charge of Azov:

“The goal of the struggle of our generation is to create the ‘Third Reich’, Greater Ukraine. The historic task of our nation in this critical century is to lead the white peoples of the world to organise a final crusade for their existence and to lead this crusade against inhumanity led by the Sami…

The migrant problem is indeed a key issue. Our goal is to destroy everything that destroys our people. As you know, you can bring back everything―the economy, order in the streets, demography, a strong army and navy, nuclear weapons―but the one thing you cannot bring back is the purity of blood… .” 

Meanwhile, the imperialists were stalling, trying to buy time for the fascist Ukrainian army and government to prepare for war. The Kremlin did not want to burn bridges with them and dreamed of reconciliation and coexistence with the MINSK agreements. The imperialists admitted years later, after it was too late, through the signatories of the agreement, the German Merkel and the French François Hollande, that they had concluded the MINSK Agreement not for a real ceasefire between the two People’s Republics and the fascist Ukrainian government, but to eliminate the two People’s Republics and to buy time to prepare for a war against Russia.

For eight years the imperialists, especially the US, Britain, Germany, and France, have been preparing Ukraine for the destruction of these two People’s Republics and for a war against Russia. The Kremlin, hoping to reconcile with the imperialists and to maintain all kinds of relations with them, neither recognised the People’s Republics nor supported them openly during this period. As a result of the pressure of the Russian people, it was content to give limited, underhand support to the two People’s Republics. 

The Kremlin rejected the calls of the leaders of the People’s Republics (and the CPRF) to intervene against the violent aggression of the fascist Ukrainian state. It accommodated the stalling of Merkel and Hollande. On 24 February, in the first days of the war, the Leninist Party stated that if Russia was to be criticised, it should not be criticised for starting a war against Ukraine, but for waiting until now. Indeed, at the end of the second year of the war, Putin proved the rightness and correctness of the Leninist Party’s criticism when he said: “The only thing we can regret is that Russia did not start active action in Ukraine earlier, thinking that we were dealing with honourable people.”

In Donbas, it was not only the fascist Ukrainian state, its army, and neo-Nazis fighting with the working class, labouring peoples, revolutionary forces, and communists of Donbas. On the contrary, while all the neo-nazis and fascist forces of the world were carried to war by the secret services of the imperialist states to the ranks of the fascist Ukrainian army, the revolutionary forces of the world, revolutionary internationalists, and communists also rushed to war in the ranks of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics alongside the people of Donbas. While this is a tangible, proven fact, the “ECA” groups with the word “communist” in their names can say the following words with great shamelessness:

“7. One of the most important elements showing the class character of this war is anti-communism, which is being intentionally raised in the region.”

There is no need to dwell on the anti-communism of fascist Ukraine. Anti-communism is the basic line of the Ukrainian government, army, and forces; this is known.

But can it be said about the other side, the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics; moreover, can it be said about the Russian Army, whose coat patch is still the Sickle-Hammer as it was in the USSR period, where in some places there are fighting soldiers carrying red flags on tanks using sickle and hammer crests? The military forces of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics are fighting on the front line and are playing a not-insignificant role in the war. Without a word about all this, the “ECA” equates the fascist Ukrainian forces with the Russian side. What better service can be rendered to the imperialists?

What is the basis for the allegations that the “leadership of Russia” (in the words of the “ECA”) is anti-communist? They do not state it explicitly, but we know that they are based on some of Putin’s words. It is true that Putin criticised Lenin on the Ukraine issue, the October Revolution, and the question of self-determination. But what does this mean? Putin is not a communist. Everyone knows this and he himself says so. But even if Putin is not a communist, the fact that he is trying to create a “hysteria” against communism can only be the ravings of social-chauvinists who want to curry favour with their imperialist masters. In Russia, communist parties are not banned, nor is there the slightest restriction on the symbols of communism. We know that the emblem of the Russian army remains the hammer and sickle. We also know that all statues, including Lenin’s mausoleum, and all symbols and values belonging to the USSR period have not been touched and cannot be touched.

Social chauvinists will not like it, but we know that Putin jealously claims the victory of the USSR over fascist Germany; that the teaching of books and literature of the USSR period has been re-introduced into the school curriculum; that it is forbidden by law to belittle the victory of the USSR, that is Stalin’s victory over Hitler’s fascism; that the “Bologna system” imposed by the imperialists in education has been abandoned; that the statue of Fidel Castro erected in Russia was inaugurated by Putin himself; that there are very strong relations between the current Cuban leadership and Putin, etc. Why don‘t the “ECA,” who claim they seek to determine the true class character of the war with an objective evaluation (!), never mention these facts?

In this case, let us ask once again, what can come out of Putin’s words about Lenin? Absolutely nothing. It would be better to end this chapter by quoting the words of Engels, the greatest dialectician known to history alongside Marx.

“Suppose these people imagine that they can seize power; what is the harm? If they have made the hole that will collapse the dam, the flood itself will soon tear them from their illusions. (…) Look at Bismarck, who became a revolutionary against his will, and at Gladstone, who finally came to blows with the Tsar whom he worshipped.” (Letter to Vera Zasulic, 23 April 1885).

Is The Russian Bourgeoisie In Favour Or Against The War?

According to the “ECA,” who show everything upside down to please their imperialist masters and who do not hesitate to falsify the facts, it is an indisputable fact that the Russian bourgeoisie is behind the war. Why? Because Russia is “imperialist”; therefore this war is an inter-imperialist war. Well, once you characterise Russia as imperialist, the rest comes like a thread; there is no need to even undertake a “concrete analysis” of THIS war. This is the whole “scientific” view of the “ECA” on the war.

In real life, we see the opposite. The Russian bourgeoisie or so-called “oligarchs” are not in favour of this war but against it. Some of them, as we shall see an example of in a moment, have made very harsh statements against Russia after taking refuge with the imperialists. Some of them kept silent out of fear and tried to protect the wealth that they stole. Here is the news that will serve as an example for those who fled to the imperialist countries and said all sorts of things against Russia:

“54-year-old billionaire Oleg Tinkov, founder of Tinkoff Bank with 20 million customers, announced that he renounced his Russian citizenship. Tinkov said, ‘I cannot be associated with a fascist country that kills innocent people. It is a shame for me to continue to hold this passport in my hands.’” 

We trust the reader’s patience and provide the rest of the article, which is also relevant. It continues as follows:

“I cannot be associated with a fascist country that starts a war with its peaceful neighbour and kills innocent people. It is a shame for me to continue to hold this passport. I hope that other Russian business people will follow my example, which will weaken the Putin regime and its economy. And eventually defeat him. I hate Putin’s Russia, but I love all Russians who openly oppose this crazy war!”

We do not have a complete list, but as far as we have been able to determine, the names of the “oligarchs” on the Forbes billionaire list who have fled Russia due to the war are as follows: Timur Turlov, Duben Vardanyan, Yuriy Milner, Nikolay Storonskiy, Oleg Tinkov, Igor Makarov, Vasiliy Anisimov. These are thieves who have stolen enough to enter the Forbes billionaires list. To these must be added oligarchs like Abromovich, and figures like the Chubays, who were primarily responsible for the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the organisation of the theft and plunder.

These are the thieves who directly and openly oppose Russia’s declaration of war against the imperialists, and who, as soon as they have so determined their allegiance, take their leave in the imperialist countries. Then there are the thieving “oligarchs” who, although they do not support the war, do not openly make statements against it. These have remained in Russia and are now waiting patiently for the day when the storm will blow over and they will return to their old days of plunder. They oppose the war underhandedly and endeavour to prevent the government from taking economic and political measures against the haute bourgeoisie.

Now, the “ECA” might respond with a joke like this: Three trees do not make a forest! Or, if a few strands are missing from someone’s head, he will not be bald! No doubt, it is so. With one difference: if the trees continue to be planted and the hairs continue to fall, let the “ECA” members have no doubt, even the most bushy-haired will become bald; what started with the planting of three trees will become a forest after a while. It is a matter of process. Therefore, our suggestion to the “ECA” who regard the victory of capitalism in Russia as a fait accompli is that they should pay attention to the process of “recovery of stolen properties” in Russia, which started some time ago but is gaining momentum. It would be appropriate to give three examples to clear their minds.

The first example is a “nationalisation” that took place in early January this year. It reads as follows:

“A number of companies belonging to Alexei Hotin’s RusOil holding have been placed under trusteeship and placed under the control of Romimushchestvo (the Russian Property Administration). The Khotin affair is important; moreover, to some extent it is reminiscent of the intimidation of other oligarchs in the course of the liquidation of Khodorkovsky. Add to this the fact that at the end of the year the property of another oligarch, Alexander Klyachin, was seized in connection with Khotin. The reason given was tax debt.”

The second example is as follows:

“Roshim was appointed to the management of Metafraks Kemikals, the largest producer of formalin and methanol in Russia, whose 94.2% stake was nationalised last September on the grounds of corruption during the privatisation (i.e. theft and plunder) of the 90s. Last April, the Bashkir Soda Company (BKS) was de facto nationalised and Roshim was appointed to manage the 47% of the company’s shares that had been transferred to the Russian Real Estate Administration (Rosimushchestvo). The management of all major chemical enterprises in Southern Russia also seems to have been transferred to Roshim. Roshim was previously called “Russkiy Vodorod,” but was renamed Roshim by government decree last year. Moreover, last October Roshim took over the management of Nortek and YSZ Avia in Altai Krai. The former produces tyres for vehicles (including heavy vehicles); the latter is the only producer of aircraft tyres in Russia.”

And the third example:

“The Russian General Prosecutor’s Office’s application for the transfer (nationalisation) of the assets of the Chelyabin Electrometallurgical Combine (CEMC) (renamed Kompaniya Etalon last July) from ‘illegal ownership’ to state ownership has been accepted; the parent company CEMC and its subsidiaries Serov Ammunition Plant and Kuznets Ferroalloys have become state property. The prosecutor’s application had been justified on the grounds that the 1992 privatisation was illegal. In a meeting with the governor of Chelyabin oblast in the middle of this month, Putin said that harmful production would be moved out of the city and the plants would be transferred to the local government. In the Forbes 2021 list, ÇEMK was ranked among the 200 largest companies in Russia with an annual revenue of 49 billion rubles. The enterprises seized by ÇEMK were symbols of Stalin-era industrialisation, the foundations of which were laid in 1929. Yuri Antipov, the boss of the TECK, and his family were 170th in the list of the 200 richest people in Russia in 2021, with $700 million. As far as I understand, the CEMK owns not only Chelyabin, but also numerous other companies from Vladivostok to Yamal. Interfax has listed some of the nationalisation cases that have had a positive outcome in recent years: Rolf, Voljskiy orgsintez, Uralbiofabrm, Metafraks Kemikals, TGK-2, Rus-Oil, Kaliningrad Port, Konti-Rus, Vyatich, etc.”

There are many examples, but there is no need to repeat them. Suffice it to say that this process, led by the Federal Prosecutor General’s Office, continues to accelerate. The source of this information on “nationalisation” is Hazal Yalın, who lives in Russia and we understand that she follows the developments and processes in Russia carefully and day by day. There is not the slightest reason to doubt their accuracy.

Nevertheless, all these examples and explanations of thieving oligarchs may not have been enough to convince the “ECA” social chauvinists. In order to be sure, we must also look at the question from the point of view of the relations between imperialist finance capital and the Russian bourgeoisie. 

When we look at the problem from this point of view, we seethe following: The Russian bourgeoisie has no other way to develop and accelerate its capital accumulation than to join the world market and the financial system of imperialist capital. Not only the Russian bourgeoisie, but the bourgeoisie of any country in the world cannot flourish and develop without being integrated into the system of imperialist finance capital. The war has destroyed the bridges between the Russian bourgeoisie and imperialist finance capital. The yachts, bank accounts, and fortunes of some of them were confiscated; their activities in other countries of the world were eliminated, their trade was either banned or made impossible, etc. Imperialist monopolies, banks, and financial capital subjugate the capital groups, the capital class, not only in their own countries, but anywhere in the world, and eliminate all conditions of development except coming under their domination.

That is why the Russian bourgeoisie opposed any war with Ukraine from the very beginning and why they opposed the uprising of the working and labouring classes of Donbas, which would pave the way for such a war, and the subsequent recognition and support of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. The interests of the Russian bourgeoisie lie not in war with the imperialist states but in close and intensive cooperation with them.

There is no need to dwell on the other articles of the “ECA” declaration that contain nothing more than generalised statements. The possibility of the “global civil war” launched by the imperialist states against the working class, labouring peoples, and revolutionary forces of the world turning into an all-out inter-state war is increasing day by day. The imperialist states, which could not find what they hoped from the global civil war, could not win the war; on the contrary, witnessing the rise of revolts, uprisings, and social revolutions, they are now provoking a war that will drag humanity into a total catastrophe.

This is the meaning of French President Macron’s call to send troops to Ukraine to fight against Russia; the recently-deciphered plans of the high-ranking officers of the German army to blow up the Crimean Bridge, and the continuous shipments of weapons and equipment to the fascist Ukrainian government.

Will a total world war break out? It is impossible to give a definite “yes” or “no” answer to this question. But we can say the following: Today’s conditions are quite different from those of 1914 and 1945. We live in a revolutionary era. The imperialist-capitalist system is in the process of collapse. We face revolutionary mass actions, revolts, uprisings, and revolutionary attempts supported by millions of people every day. 

The conditions of imperialism and the war have matured the social reformist boil, transforming it into social chauvinism. The emergence of the boil of social chauvinism at a time when the world proletariat and labouring peoples need revolutionary communist parties more than ever will, of course, lead to negative consequences for the revolutionary communist movement. However, we cannot undo what has been done. The Belgian communists have shown what must be done by expelling their social chauvinist leaders from the party.

Let us not forget that “the development of the proletariat everywhere passes through civil war”(Engels, Letter to August Bebel, 28.10.1882).

The post Leninist Turkish Communist Labour Party Calls “European Communist Action” Declaration Disruptive to the UNITY of World Communists appeared first on They Shall Not Pass.

Fascism today is even more deeply linked to the ideology and practices of extreme neo-liberalism, to the cannibalistic individualism of social Darwinism and to the poisonous whims of “desire” of “post-modern” irrationalism. Hence the combination of nationalism/racism and imperialist cosmopolitanism that characterises it.

 

Today, the US-NATO-EU imperialist axis is instrumentalising and “exporting” fascism and Nazism to install its subordinate regimes in countries that until the 1980s were part of the USSR, Yugoslavia or other countries that passed through phases of early socialism in Europe, South Korea, etc.

 

The post On the Relation Between Imperialism and Fascism During WWIII appeared first on They Shall Not Pass.

Greek Communist exposes the KKE leadership as “Slimy, repulisive and insolent cynical agents of subversion and disruption.”

Original Article by Dimitrios Patelis| Revolutionary Unification (Greece)

Therefore, we cannot allow the renegades, those who have been playing for years the rigged game of conspiracies, brazen interventions in the internal affairs of fraternal parties and organisations, with their ruthless manipulative practices typical of the degeneration, undermining and disintegration of the movement, to win in this confrontation: blackmail and coercion from above, negotiations behind the back, recruitment, coups, take-overs, splits, misuse of the parties’ online and financial resources, ultimatums, etc.. Exclusivity in the use of such toxic negativity, such dirty and deplorable means, has been claimed and deservedly captured by the renegades of the KKE, who, with the arrogance of the self-appointed and self-righteous leader/despot that they display, have now lost every trace of comrade morality, respect and credibility among fellow militants and comrades on a global scale, as slimy, repulsive and insolent cynical agents of subversion and disruption, as an example to be avoided.

 

Just as truth cannot be attained through a flawed cognitive process, so the high objectives of the movement cannot be attained through means, ways, paths and subjects that do not measure up to them. Every attempt to pursue a high and true objective by vile, distorted, alien means, and so on, ultimately leads to the abandonment of that objective, to its neglect, to the service of alien objectives and interests. This is what the Marxist approach on the dialectical relationship between ends and means clearly teaches.

The post Greek Communist exposes the KKE leadership as “Slimy, repulisive and insolent cynical agents of subversion and disruption.” appeared first on They Shall Not Pass.

Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action)

Index

Part 1: Critical approach to the positions of the CPG

• Reasons for a response to the Communist Party of Greece (CPG)

• Greece must leave NATO! Or should not it?

• The CPG’s subterfuge to avoid debate

• No support for capitalists?

• Reactionary Venezuela?

• The member organizations of the Platform “ignore or deny” that the current mode of production in the world is capitalist…

Part 2: Criticism of the ideological foundations of the CPG

• A handful of countries?

• “Imperialist pyramid” or Lenin’s theory of imperialism?

• Idealism hidden in “Imperialist pyramid”

• Methodological error

• No participation of communists in governments led by the bourgeoisie?

• Are there no stages between capitalism and socialism?

• Erroneous positions are not harmless

• Incorrect and damaging derivations

Part 3: Imperialism vs. imperialism?

• A long work

• Brief and concise summary of the “imperialist pyramid” and the CPG study method

• A big mess

• China and Russia belong to the G20

• State presence in Russian companies

• Foreign penetration of the Russian economy

• “Gigantic amounts” of capital export from Russia

• The “big” Russian banking

• Warmongering Russia?

(The previous sections have been published in past issues.)

Warmongering Russia?

Imbalance

The task of defeating imperialism is not and will not be easy. As we see in Ukraine and recently in the Middle East, the struggle will demand sacrifices because the imperialist states, especially the U.S., wield immense military power which they do not hesitate to use when it suits them and because they control the world banking and financial system.

Only 42 of the nearly 800 military bases that the US[1] maintains worldwide are located in NATO member states. The rest are scattered across the globe. This means that the US has undisputed military control over all continents.

Russia, for its part, has some 15 military bases in 8 countries[2]… Most of them, with the exception of Syria and Moldova, are located in post-Soviet countries and therefore close to its borders. China has a single base in Djibouti[3].

The imbalance between the United States, on the one hand, and Russia and China, on the other, in terms of the number of military bases around the world is remarkable. If Russia had withdrawn its military bases from all post-Soviet countries, as it did in the German Democratic Republic[4], it would be in a very precarious position today in the face of NATO’s advance. These bases guarantee Russia degrees of territorial security, albeit decreasingly over time, as NATO has managed to gradually (politically) separate the post-Soviet world from it, encircling Russia from the Baltic countries to Kazakhstan[5], despite the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)[6] and all Russia’s attempts to enter an era of post-Soviet capitalist cooperation with “the West”.

If we add to all this the fact that the US has the largest war budget in the history of mankind and the incredible 255 military actions recorded from 1991 to 2024 by the US Congressional Research Service[7], we find an unprecedented war culture. But that is not all: the history of U.S. interference around the world is inconceivable: China in 1945, Italy in 1947, Greece in 1947, the Philippines in the late 1940s, Korea in 1945, Syria and Albania in 1949, Germany in the 1950s, Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1953, Costa Rica in the mid-1950s, Syria in 1956 and again from 2011, Indonesia in 1957, British Guiana in 1953, Italy in the 1950s, Vietnam from the 1950s, Cambodia from 1955, Laos from 1957, Haiti from 1959, then from the mid-1980s and again in 2017, Cuba from 1959. Then from the 1960s Guatemala, Algeria, Ecuador, Congo, Brazil, Peru, Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Ghana, Uruguay, Chile, Greece, Bolivia, Guatemala. Then Panama 1969, Costa Rica from the 1970s, Iraq 1972 and 1990, Australia 1973, Angola 1975, Jamaica 1976, Nicaragua 1978, Seychelles 1979, Grenada 1979, Afghanistan from 1979, Morocco 1983, Libya 1981 and 2011, Suriname 1982, Bulgaria 1990, Albania 1991, El Salvador from the 1980s, Yugoslavia 1990, Ukraine from 2014 and Yemen in 2024.

Table 1: Air power of the countries of China, Russia and the US according to Global Firepower[8] for the year 2024.

According to Global Firepower[9], China has 1207 fighter aircraft, 371 specialized attack aircraft, 289 transport aircraft, 402 trainer aircraft, 112 special mission aircraft, 10 air tankers, 913 helicopters (see Table 1).

The same source notes that Russia has 809 fighter aircraft, 730 specialized attack aircraft, 453 transport aircraft, 552 training aircraft, 145 special mission aircraft, 19 air tankers, 1547 helicopters (see Table 1).

Comparatively, the US possesses 1854 fighter aircraft, 896 specialized attack aircraft, 957 transport aircraft, 2648 training aircraft, 695 special mission aircraft, 606 air tankers, 5737 helicopters (see Table 1).

The undisputed air supremacy is in the hands of the USA. China and Russia together cannot come close to US air power.

Table 2: Land power of the countries China, Russia and the USA according to Global Firepower data for the year 2024.

Table 2 shows that the three countries are more or less on a par in terms of land power. However, it should be borne in mind that the land power of the United States is based not only on its equipment, but above all on its military bases distributed over the five continents, especially those located at strategic points both from a military point of view and from the point of view of control of international trade routes. The U.S. has stationed several of its nuclear weapons (some are even active) at certain strategically located military bases. Its military bases are also used to monitor areas with drones or to deploy them in military conflicts. For example, the US used the Ramstein military base in Germany to recalibrate the flight of its drones by adjusting them to the curvature of the earth in order to deploy them in Syria.

Therefore, objectively speaking, one cannot speak of an equal relationship between the land power of Russia and China, on the one hand, and that of the United States, on the other.

Table 3: Naval power of the countries China, Russia and the USA according to Global Firepower data for the year 2024.

According to Global Firepower, the US is the undisputed maritime power (see Table 3), although it may seem otherwise.

As for naval power, we would like to reproduce part of an article from Le Monde Diplomatique, which aptly describes US naval power and, in particular, its comparison with China:

“What makes a maritime power is its presence in the straits, the bottlenecks of the main maritime routes: the Strait of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal, which connect the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean; the Strait of Malacca, between the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea and the Pacific; and the Strait of Hormuz, at the exit of the Persian Gulf, through which a quarter of the world’s oil exports are transported. The US Navy is in a position to control all three bottlenecks: the US 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, the 6th is headquartered in Naples and the 7th in Yokosuka, just outside Tokyo Bay.

[…] U.S. ‘carrier strike groups’ play a particularly important role in securing defense. A CSG (Carrier Strike Group) consists of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with dozens of fighters, fighter planes and helicopters, accompanied by two guided missile cruisers, two or three destroyers and two combat submarines. The giant aircraft carriers, which are almost as long as the largest container giants, give the US a degree of control over the world’s sea lanes that no previous maritime power has ever achieved. 

[…] The real challenge is the rise of China as a maritime superpower. The Pentagon is particularly concerned about the expansion of the deepwater port of Gwadar in Pakistan’s Balochistan province, which lies at the entrance to the Persian Gulf, and U.S. intelligence services consider the Chinese presence on this strategically important coast a serious problem. However, the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), as the Navy’s secret service is known, conclude in their analyses that China is incapable of challenging the US as a naval power.

It is true that China has expanded its military capabilities in parallel with its economic growth and has also developed anti-ship missiles, for example. However, Beijing has only two aircraft carriers, far inferior to those of the US. A DIA analysis states that China wants to ‘circumvent the US-led regional security system’ (in its own region!). The scenarios depicted by the Pentagon envisage a possible confrontation between the two countries in the waters of China’s areas of interest.

The idea that China wants to seize control of sea lanes essential to its economy is pure speculation.”[10]

The undisputed military power is that of NATO, especially that of the US. This fact is key to understanding which countries are aggressors and which are not. As Le Monde Diplomatique rightly points out in the previous quote, it is the US that has control of the sea lanes and it is the US that wants to confront China in “China’s areas of interest”.

What a brazen statement then from Jens Stoltenberg at the last World Economic Forum: “NATO is not moving towards Asia. It is China that is moving closer to us.”

And what dehumanization is evidenced by the words of NATO Admiral Rob Bauer, who told the press after a meeting of NATO defense chiefs in Brussels. He noted that NATO forces are preparing for the outbreak of a war against Russia in the next 20 years, that citizens should do the same (i.e., prepare for that war) and that they should understand that their lives will change radically. So that’s 20 years that NATO is giving humanity so that it―humanity―can prepare for its―NATO’s―war of annihilation against Russia…

Let us now see how far from reality the CPG assesses the current international situation.

All the same… or not?

A statement entitled “On the one year since the imperialist war in Ukraine”, published on the CPG website on March 27, 2023, reads:

“The peoples of the two countries, Ukraine and Russia, who lived in peace and prospered together as Soviet Republics under the USSR, have been shedding their blood for nine years now, culminating in last year’s massacre. This is due to the plans of the USA, NATO and the EU, in the context of the fierce competition of those powers with capitalist Russia for the control of markets, raw materials, transport networks and geopolitical pillars in the Eurasian region.

The Communist and Workers’ Parties express our solidarity with the peoples of Ukraine and Russia, who are paying for the imperialist conflict with their blood. We have shown and continue to show the peoples that the developments in Ukraine are taking place in the framework of monopoly capitalism, rejecting the false pretexts utilized by both sides of the conflict.”[11]

We agree with the idea that “the peoples of the two countries, Ukraine and Russia, lived in peace and prospered together as Soviet Republics within the USSR”, and also with that which points out that these peoples began to wage war against each other since its dissolution. However, the statement of the CPG and the other signatory organizations on the causes of these military conflicts seems to us to be erroneous. In its well-known reductionist analysis, the CPG overlooks important circumstances and consequently equates “the USA, NATO and the EU” with “capitalist Russia”.

According to this party, Russia would wage an “annexationist, predatory and rapacious war” in Ukraine, using Lenin’s terminology. Well, we have already seen that, according to the CPG, any capitalist country recognized by the United Nations would be imperialist, so it is not surprising that the CPG considers “capitalist Russia” as such. Similarly, Burkina Faso or Niger could wage a war on their own borders, for example over a conflict with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and in the opinion of the CPG they would be imperialists and the resulting war would be a war of an imperialist nature.

In this sense, according to the CPG there could be no support from the international proletariat and in general from all the exploited, oppressed and neglected strata in the world to almost any country involved in a war anywhere in the world, with the exception of the war waged by the Palestinian people against the Zionist fascism of Israel, although in this case with the usual lukewarm positions:

“The KKE has opposing ideological, political and philosophical views with this political-military organization. However, it will never allow the mass bombing of Gaza and the killing of thousands of small children, allegedly carried out for the elimination of Hamas, to enter into the consciousness of the people in order to justify the long-standing Israeli occupation. At the same time, all the evidence shows that Israel’s aim is to cancel the two-state solution, to exploit the hydrocarbons and the geographical location of the Gaza Strip, to commit genocide against the Palestinian people and to force the displacement of those who do not die in the Israeli massacre to the desert.”[12]

We were surprised by the CPG’s not-so-unfavorable assessment of Hamas. However, the CPG makes its usual masterful leaps from correct to incorrect, or, in this case, lukewarm positions when it expresses support for the two-state solution. In our view, this solution lost its validity many years ago, and if we make a cold historical analysis, it lost its validity at the very moment when the Zionist state of Israel began to expand into Palestinian territory. A truly humane position in this context can only envisage one solution: a single secular Palestinian state in which Muslims, Jews (non-Zionists), Christians, all other religions and non-believers coexist on an equal footing; regardless of the fact that in a region where the Muslim religion predominates, it will naturally occupy the leading position.

To continue to insist on the two-state solution at this time seems to us, to say the least, naive, because it means accepting in the midst of the Arab, Turkish and Persian world a state that is in practice―as the CPG itself says―“a US base”. Moreover, the ideology underlying such a Zionist state is fascist. How could the Zionist state, aggressive by nature, not pose a threat to peace in the region? Genuine support for Hamas requires support for the struggle for a Palestinian state from river to sea and an end to the Zionist state of Israel.

We also agree with the CPG that the conflict in Palestine is part of the international conflict, with the countries organized in NATO on the one hand and “Russia, China, Iran, etc.” on the other. However, on the basis of this correct statement, the CPG equates the second group with the first[13]:

“Given that the war in Palestine is objectively intertwined with the competition between imperialist powers (USA, NATO, EU on the one hand and Russia, China, Iran, etc. on the other) in the region and internationally, two different but equally incorrect perceptions arise from the above: 1) one that says that an “anti-imperialist axis” (Iran―Russia―China) is being formed that should be supported against the US imperialists and their allies; 2) a second one, which is less widespread at the moment but equally erroneous, that says that both war conflicts are imperialist, that they are different expressions of an imperialist third world war, therefore we cannot support the struggle of the Palestinian people for liberation because it is part of the imperialist conflict. […]

Russia, China and Iran do not express their support for the Palestinians because they stand with the peoples’ just cause but because they want to hinder the US plans in the region, to impede it, to afflict it. Therefore, these powers do not constitute an “anti-imperialist axis”. Their monopolies work for their own interests and that is why they cannot be consistent in supporting the Palestinian struggle. It is another matter that the Palestinians, like any national liberation or even revolutionary movement, are righteously seeking to take advantage of these contradictions in their struggle against the Israeli occupation.”[14]

The CPG rejects the fact that Russia, China and Iran support Palestine, which amounts in practice to postulating that the Palestinian people should fight alone against a Goliath, a country that has more than 80 nuclear weapons, a formal army, an intelligence service considered the best in the world and is supported by the US and the EU, i.e. NATO. Not to rejoice that Russia, China and Iran are on the side of Palestine and to characterize this fact as “working for their own interests, for their own monopolies and therefore cannot be consistent in supporting the Palestinian struggle” is not to side with the Palestinian people, but to see them destined for a lonely struggle that therefore has no choice but martyrdom. “They have fought bravely for a just cause,” the CPG would like to proclaim, even though there is no longer a Palestine to fight for or living Palestinians to fight for.

Russia is currently fighting in Ukraine to defend its borders from NATO and in defense of the anti-fascist peoples of the Donbass. Unlike NATO, it does not make other peoples fight for it. Russia fights with its soldiers, Russian soldiers, and because it has fought a real human war, a war directed at military objectives, it has had to sacrifice excessive numbers of its own soldiers, which would not have happened if Russia had been the US or Israel. In that case, no stone would have been left unturned in Ukraine, as we see today in Gaza, or as we saw in Mosul (Iraq) and Rakka (Syria) when the US fought there one of its many battles for “democracy and against international terrorism”.

The CPG is unable to distinguish these essential differences between imperialist and fascist belligerent actions, on the one hand, and Russian actions, on the other, demonstrating a not inconsiderable myopia in matters of international politics.

On the other hand, the CPG expects Russia, which is not only trying to push back NATO in Ukraine, which is fighting against a miserable fascist regime[15] lackey of this organization, which has supported Syria against NATO’s (almost) direct interference in this country, to pursue a “consistent” policy in Palestine as well. Our question is: What does the CPG mean by a “consistent” policy in Palestine: Russia sending soldiers, weapons, planes and tanks to Palestine? We have not been able to find an answer to this question.

But we know that the CPG is in favor of a two-state solution on Palestinian territory. You may not know it, but in this case it shares its position with Russia, which has officially declared itself in favor of a return to the 1967 borders. Would this be a “consistent” Russian position according to the CPG?

In the following parts we will continue the “warmongering Russia” theme and discuss the current conflict in Ukraine and the way the CPG evaluates them.

Notes

[1] The United Kingdom, the main US ally, has another remarkable 140 military bases around the world. 

[2] The countries in which Russia has military bases are: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Syria and Tajikistan. Some unserious lists also include the following countries: Georgia, Libya, Ukraine and Sudan. We have not included these countries for the following reasons:

 – Sudan: because the project of a Russian military base in this country unfortunately never came to fruition. The civil war in Sudan broke out precisely because the Sudanese government had agreed with Russia to establish a Russian naval base on Sudanese territory. Imperialism (US and EU) prevented such “daring” by encouraging radicalized groups against the government, seemingly overnight. Today we see the sad result.

 – Ukraine: Since the Donbass republics have decided by referendum to join the Russian Federation, it is no longer Ukrainian but Russian territory and therefore cannot be considered a “foreign military base”.

 – Libya: because it is a military presence of the private Russian company Wagner, which is not a permanent deployment.

 – Georgia: because Ossetia and Abkhazia have become independent from Georgia and are under Russian protection, which is not identical but similar to the situation of the Donbass republics.

Moldova deserves an additional comment: Transnistria became independent from Moldova and is supported by Russia.

[3] Two other military bases attributed to China (one in Cuba and the other in Tajikistan) do not exist.

[4] It is likely that this decision will not be viewed favorably by the CPG, although we cannot find any opinion about it on its website. 

It seems to us that Russia’s decision to withdraw its armed forces from democratic Germany was a naive act, at least from today’s perspective, considering that the USA did not do the same and, on the contrary, subjected the whole of Germany to an iron military, political and economic domination.

[5] A NATO peacekeeping center began operating in Kazakhstan in October 2023. U.S. Ambassador Daniel Roseblum attended the opening ceremony. Kazakhstan is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and shares borders with China and Russia. Kazakh military personnel are scheduled to be trained to NATO standards at the center.

Soon, in January 2024, Kazakhstan began to follow the path of the Baltic countries and Ukraine in rehabilitating Nazi accomplices. The Socialist Movement of Kazakhstan condemns the final decision of the State Commission for the Final Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression to acquit 311,000 people, many of them criminals or with weapons in their hands, who fought against the Red Army and Soviet power as terrorists, Basmachi, members of the Turkestan Legion and Eastern Muslim SS units.

All of them are presented today as “victims of Stalin’s regime in the 1920s and 1950s”, although among the prisoners there were numerous people convicted of banditry, political sabotage, looting of public property, attacks on trains and motor vehicles.

A scenario similar to that of the Baltic countries or Ukraine is foreseeable in Kazakhstan in the future. If Russia were to intervene there in defense of the Russian-speaking minorities and to prevent further NATO advance on its borders, the CPG would have no qualms in accusing Russia of imperialism, because for this party defense is synonymous with aggression.

The case of Bulgaria is equally tragic. On January 17 and 18, 2024, the inhabitants of the Bulgarian city of Plovdiv defended the monument to the Soviet liberator soldier “Alyosha”, which was to be moved from the Liberators’ Hill to another place at the proposal of the Bulgarian deputies because “it does not belong to the culture and history of the city”.

It should be recalled that the Bulgarian Defense Minister recently gave vent to his Russophobia by calling for the facts concerning friendly Russian aid to Bulgaria to be removed from the history books.

The post-Soviet countries, under the influence of imperialism, continue the process of breaking with their Soviet past and their friendly relations with Russia and its peoples.

[6] The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is a Russian-dominated group of six post-Soviet states that requires its members to assist each other in the event of an attack.

[7] Congressional Research Service, “Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2023”, Updated June 7, 2023, in: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42738

[8] In the case of the US, the data does not add up. There is an inexplicable difference of 184 air units.

[9] The information is available at the following link: https://www.globalfirepower.com/

[10] Le Monde Diplomatiqu, “Atlas der Globalisierung―Ungleiche Welt” (in english: “Atlas of globalization―Unequal world”), article: “Geopolitik des maritimen Welthandels―von Tankerflotten und strategische Alianzen” (in english: “Geopolitics of Global Maritime Trade: Tanker Fleets and Strategic Alliances”), author of the article: Tom Stevenson, p.107

[11] Communist Party of Greece (CPG), “On the one year since the imperialist war in Ukraine,” in.: https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/ON-THE-ONE-YEAR-SINCE-THE-IMPERIALIST-WAR-IN-UKRAINE/

[12] Communist Party of Greece (CPG), “Short answers to current ideological-political questions concerning the Israeli attack and massacre against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip”, in: https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/Short-answers-to-current-ideological-political-questions-concerning-the-Israeli-attack-and-massacre-against-the-Palestinian-people-in-the-Gaza-Strip/

[13] At this point, we would like to point out another subterfuge used by the CPG: Let us note the “etc.” that comes after the enumeration of “Russia, China, Iran”. 

The “etc.” certainly includes, and this is also recognized by the CPG, the people of Palestine, but also the people of Syria or the people of Yemen or the people of Donbass, the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or the peoples of Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba. It seems to us no coincidence that the CPG has not included in the list at least some of the countries belonging to the bloc of Russia, China and Iran. The list replacing this “etc.” could in fact undermine their argument, because it would include countries like Cuba or Palestine, for example, which are clearly “anti-imperialist” according to the common sense of the broad progressive masses. Such sentiments would clash with the not-so-sensible positions of the CPG and cause perplexity among those who read its statements. The CPG is well versed, as we have already seen, in the art of obfuscation.

[14] Communist Party of Greece (CPG), “Short answers to current ideological-political questions concerning the Israeli attack and massacre against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip”, in: https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/Short-answers-to-current-ideological-political-questions-concerning-the-Israeli-attack-and-massacre-against-the-Palestinian-people-in-the-Gaza-Strip/

[15] This miserable regime has on its conscience so many victims, among them the Chilean-American journalist Gonzálo Lira, was the product of a coup d’état in 2014, sends its people to death in the service of NATO as if they were cannon fodder, has systematically erased all traces of the memory of the victory of socialism over fascism during World War II… and a long etcetera of terrible deeds.

The post The political stance of the Communist Party of Greece… a communist stance?Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action) appeared first on They Shall Not Pass.

This article is our reply to the flawed analysis of the KKE in reducing everything to inter-imperialist rivalry.

Capitalist countries can be on the correct side of history as has been evidenced most notably during the World War II era when the US and UK joined the USSR in the fight against fascism. These countries’ motives were aligned with their own national interests and to their own capitalist class, but joining the Anti-Fascist Forces during World War II was progressive.

Similarly, it is obvious that Russia, like all capitalist countries, is controlled by oligarchs operating to benefit the few rather than the majority. As materialists, we also see that, under Putin, Russia has taken significant steps to stand up to the US, EU, NATO, and the G7.

The 2014 Euromaidan coup and a path to join NATO set the stage for a civil war in the Ukraine and fulfillment of the dangers laid out by CIA Director William Burns in a 2008 cable titled “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines”ⁱ which was released by Wikileaks and showed that NATO was aware that Russia saw eastern expansion of NATO as military aggression which would split the Ukraine leading to a civil war which would create an “opening for Russian intervention.” This cable also showed the risk of “new member countries ‘rewrit[ing] history and glorify[ing] fascists’” without repercussions because they were protected by NATO.

Russia’s Special Military Operation can be judged in many ways. However, we cannot overlook the fact that Russia took the initiative and risk to stand up to NATO’s bullying. Russia saw the broken promises and understood the implications of an eastern expansion of NATO. They did not want to become the next Yugoslavia, Iraq, or Libya and took a different path.

In an attempt to weaken the economy of Russia after the beginning of the Special Military Operation, the West has enacted sanctions, and a price cap of $60 a barrel was placed on Russian crude oil. Russia has sidestepped these limitations while the West shot themselves in the foot, struggling with inflation and a high cost of oil products, especially in Europe. According to the IMF, GDP growth in Russia outpaced the US, Germany, France, and the UK for 2023. This growth has opened the door for an end to US sanctions on Venezuelan oil, and Russia is working with People’s China to move past the petrodollar. BRICS is expanding, and is providing an alternative to NATO and the West.

We must recognize that the US and NATO have held a world-wide monopoly and dictated the affairs of all other nations. They work to ensure that, across the globe, countries manage their economies according to the interest of US imperialism, and they hinder all competition to their global hegemony. They Shall Not Pass supports Russia in its quest for a multipolar world because it provides working people around the world, and the leadership of their countries, an escape from the gripped fist of NATO.

i https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

The post On Russia’s opposition to NATO appeared first on They Shall Not Pass.

For article source click link.

Commentary on the article of the International Department of the CC of the KKE “On the position of the RCWP in relation to the imperialist war in Ukraine”

Understand the assessment of modern warfare and modern politics

FROM THE EDITORS: We have already written a lot about the range of opinions among the communists on the issue of assessing the ongoing hostilities of the Russian Armed Forces and the Donbass militia in the Donbass and Ukraine. Various, sometimes contradictory, opinions, the fervent fervor of some and even the hysterical outbursts of some comrades are certainly worthy of attention and consideration. But still, we are primarily interested in a scientific approach to assessing events. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin himself in the preface to the post-revolutionary edition of the work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism wrote: “I should like to hope that my pamphlet will help to understand the fundamental economic question, without the study of which nothing can be understood in the appraisal of modern war and modern politics, namely, the question of the economic essence of imperialism.”Of our allied parties, the deepest and most heated discussion took place between the RCWP and the Communist Party of Greece. The comrades of the KKE did not agree with our assessment of the current situation on a number of issues, and the RCWP did not sign the joint statement of a number of parties initiated by them. The International Department of the CC of the KKE published a critical article in the newspaper Rizospastis regarding our position. The International Commission of the Central Committee of our Party responded to the criticism of the comrades and put forward arguments in favour of our analysis.

The Central Committee of the RCWP expresses confidence that the ongoing discussion will help not only the disputing parties, but also the entire communist movement in the formation of a revolutionary communist pole.

On April 29, 2022, the newspaper “Rizospastis”, the central organ of the Communist Party of Greece, published an article by the International Department of the CC of the KKE “On the position of the RCWP in relation to the imperialist war in Ukraine“.

The article evaluates the actions of the RCWP in connection with the special operation carried out by Russia in Ukraine, expresses extreme resentment for our disagreement with the position of the KKE and argues that the approach of the RCWP is eclectic and that it descends into serious theoretical and political errors, even to the “borrowing“ of bourgeois concepts.

We openly say that we categorically disagree with such assessments, considering them unscientific, but we even more disagree with the method of conducting discussions on the part of the party, with which we have long-standing friendly relations. At the request of the International Department of the CC of the KKE of 28.04.2022, we discussed the situation especially at the meeting of the Political Council and answered the questions asked. However, it turned out that no one was particularly waiting for our arguments, and on 29.04.2022, the above-mentioned article was published in the newspaper “Rizospastis”.

Since we have already verified the main arguments and submitted them to the comrades in the CC of the KKE, we are submitting them for publication on the Solidet website, trying to adhere to the structure of the article in Rizospastis for the better orientation of the Greek readers.

A Few Words on the Relationship between the RCWP and the KKE

The Political Council of the Central Committee of our Party carefully examined and discussed the letter of the International Department of the CC of the KKE of 28. 04. 2022 on serious differences in our positions on a number of issues, primarily on the assessment of the situation in connection with the hostilities in Ukraine and Donbas.

We also believe that the time has come to clarify our relations, which have a long history and have mostly been fruitful and comradely in nature.

We remember well and appreciate the fact that the KKE was one of the first foreign communist parties to establish bilateral relations with the RCWP. Our parties have always treated Marxism as a science in the same way, and our positions on the analysis of the causes of the defeat of socialism in the USSR have practically coincided. At the International Meeting in Leningrad in 1997 in honor of the 80th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, we, together with 30 parties, signed the October-80 declaration. We can say that we worked together in theory. For example, at the request of our Greek comrades, we selected relevant literature on economic discussions in the USSR, and our specialists shared their knowledge. A group of scientists, political economists and philosophers (Assoc. Prof. Yabrova, Prof. Popov, Prof. Elmeev, Prof. Volovich) traveled to Greece to give lectures and participate in scientific discussions. We also recall with gratitude the organization of a group of our trade union activists to study in Greece. In 1998 our party immediately supported the initiative of the KKE to hold regular International Meetings of Communist and Workers’ Parties and participated in all meetings as a member of the Working Group of Solid Workers. Together, our parties laid the foundations for the publication of the journal International Communist Review (CIE) and the creation of the European Communist Initiative Movement (ECI).

The RCWP viewed these forms of interaction as concrete steps to create a communist pole in the international communist movement, which, in our opinion, has had a strong opportunist bias since Gorbachev’s time. As you know, our party contributed to overcoming this deviation, organized international conferences of orthodox parties: “100 Years of October” in Leningrad, “100 Years of the Comintern” and “140 Years of J. V. Stalin” in Moscow, “70 Years of Victory” in Donbass, in which the KPD participated.

Unfortunately, despite these long-standing comradely relations between our parties, we have indeed encountered serious differences in positions in recent years.

How did it come about? We, too, sincerely experience this fact and analyze the previous history. We think it should be said frankly that certain discrepancies appeared much earlier than the military operations of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine began. Previously, there were differences on the issue of the scientific understanding of fascism and the assessment of manifestations of fascism in the foreign policy of the United States (i.e. the initiation and support of terrorist forms of domination of capital in the “victim” country) and its NATO allies, today it is “fascism for export.” Significant differences were also evident in the assessment of the activities of the Comintern.

But even more significant, from our point of view, is the fact that gradually divergences have been accumulating in our parties’ vision of the method of forming a communist pole. We certainly recognize the merits of the KKE in initiating and creating the CIE and then the ECI, but we have to point out that these organizational forms have never been developed as effective forms of collective struggle against opportunism and revisionism. They limited themselves to exchanging the views of the parties among themselves, but they did not find a continuation in practical joint work – they did not ensure even the most elementary joint coordinated actions of the parties of the pole to the outside, for example, at such forums as general meetings of the solids. In order to ensure the appearance of unity and prevent a split in the system, the The KKE has always held back attempts to organize a common front against the opportunism of the Euro-Left and other right-wing parties, although it has expressed itself on questions of theory and current politics in the main correctly, from a revolutionary Marxist standpoint.

To this we must add that, from our point of view, the comrades leaders of the KKE from the time of their first meetings became somewhat arrogant, as they say in Russia, became bronzed, began to present their opinion as the ultimate truth or even in the form of lectures, and the CIE and the EKI began to be transformed into organs for the support of the KKE line. We think that this is the reason for the recent decision of the Presidium of the Hungarian Workers’ Party to terminate the party’s participation in the Secretariat of the European Communist Initiative, since the comrades can no longer assume responsibility for the various political documents adopted in the name of the Secretariat.

It is with a heavy heart that we have to have this conversation. As V.I. Lenin said: “… There are moments that oblige us to put the question point-blank and call things by their true name, under the threat of causing irreparable harm to both the Party and the revolution.”

Report of the CC of the RCWP and the Objections of the Comrades of the International Department of the CC of the KKE

The comrades of the KKE have indeed studied the report of the Central Committee of the RCWP and rightly point out that we assert that “capitalism brought the war to the land of the Soviet Union”. We assess the nature of the war as imperialist – that “the true source of the conflict in Ukraine is the inter-imperialist contradictions of the US, the EU and Russia, in which Ukraine is involved.” The RCWP also believes that Ukraine is a fascist state and that fascism in this country “is Ukrainian only in the place of manifestation, in language, in historical continuity and in personnel, and in terms of its origins it is quite American.”

After that, the comrades state that they do not agree with the RCWP’s understanding of Lenin’s theory of imperialism, they do not agree with the theory of “fascism in foreign policy”, they do not share the conclusion of the RCWP, which believes that what is happening in Ukraine has a positive side – helping the people of Donbass in the fight against American fascism in foreign policy, and therefore it supports it. The theoreticians of the KKE claim that it is the eclecticism of the position of the RCWP, which in the end leads it to support the imperialist war. They say that this is why the RCWP supported Russia’s imperialist invasion of Ukraine and did not sign the Joint Statement supported by 42 Communist and Workers’ Parties and 30 Communist Youth Organizations from all over the world, issued on the initiative of the KKE, the Communist Party of the Workers of Spain, The Communist Party of Mexico and the Communist Party of Turkey, in contrast to their youth organization, the Revolutionary Communist Youth League (Bolsheviks), which maintains bilateral relations with the KMG.

The comrades of the KKE regret that the RCWP is not among the 42 Communist and Workers’ Parties that have signed the Joint Statement against the imperialist war in Ukraine. We, too, regret and worry. At the same time, however, we are compelled to note that there was also a certain arrogance and disregard for the opinions of the comrades. The statement was initiated by the Communist Party of Greece, the Communist Party of the Workers of Spain, the Communist Party of Mexico and the Communist Party of Turkey. We respect these parties, but we consider it simply indecent that the authors did not consult with the communists of Donbass, Russia and Ukraine before submitting the draft for general review. In 2015, we held an international conference in Donbass on the fight against fascism in honour of the 70th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. How could one act so tactlessly, knowing that the war against Donbass has been going on for 8 years and has already claimed 15,000 lives, mostly civilians? The comrades of the KKE and the other signatories rightly pointed out that the Russian bourgeoisie is not engaged in denazification for ideological reasons, that it does not intend to uproot the capitalist roots that give rise to fascism. But, we ask them, what should have been done – to wait and endure further? You know that we (the RCWP, the KRO LPR and the RFD) have always not only admitted, but also persistently demanded greater assistance to bourgeois Russia, but in the statement under consideration you did not even mention that the war on the part of the working people and communists of the Donbass has a just anti-fascist character. Or do you disagree with that?

Instead, you speak very ironically about the character of the so-called “People’s Republics” of Donbass, which has nothing to do with the character of the People’s Republics that emerged after World War II in Europe.

Yes, that’s right. We, and the Communists of the Donbass, know this, and in our agitation we speak in sufficient detail and directly about the loss of elements of nationality in the administration of the republics. But let me tell you that the nationality of these republics was born of and conditioned by the unwillingness of the people to submit to the dictates of the fascists, the unwillingness to repeat the fate of the burned House of Trade Unions in Odessa. At the referendums in May 2014, the people of Donbass said their “OHI” to the fascist punishers in Kiev. This is the basis for what you think is the wrong nationality of these republics.

The fact that it is impossible for the Donbass republics to survive in this struggle without the help of bourgeois Russia has been absolutely clear since 2014, especially since they are confronting the united forces of world imperialist capital. But this does not mean at all that the republics should refuse this assistance from the Russian Federation. The RCWP, we repeat, has always not only allowed, but always demanded more assistance from the authorities, including military assistance. For some reason, you didn’t mind before. Do you think today that the fight against American fascism should not have been helped in foreign policy? We believe that the fascists should be beaten with any weapon, always, with the use of all allies and fellow travelers.

A Mistaken Approach to the Consideration of the Modern World and Russia by the RCWP or the KKE?

The comrades of the KKE in Rizospastis write: “It is evident that, unlike the CPRF, the RCWP is trying to approach the events from a class standpoint, but it is slipping into serious theoretical and political errors, even into ‘borrowing’ bourgeois concepts from those forces which it calls opportunist. Such blunders lead to the justification of an unacceptable Russian military invasion, which, as it itself admits, is being carried out for imperialist purposes under the pretext of saving the people of Donbass.”

The claims are really serious. The discrepancy in assessments of the character of the imperialist war must be dealt with seriously, because it is a question of science and theory.

We have already expressed our opinion to you earlier, in the course of working on the articles for the CIE, that the Ideological Department and the leadership of the KKE, from our point of view, somewhat misinterpret Lenin’s theory of imperialism in relation to today’s reality. You present the matter in such a way that today the whole world is imperialist, all countries are dominated by monopolies, and only a kind of pyramid of imperialists of the highest category, of the second and third levels, etc., should be considered.

At the same time, you seem to forget Lenin’s conclusion that capitalism has now singled out a handful (less than one-tenth of the world’s population, less than one-fifth in the most “generous” and exaggerated calculations) of particularly rich and powerful states, which are plundering the whole world by simply “cutting coupons.” This objective situation has even found its reflection, albeit in a distorted form, in the bourgeois conception of the “golden billion”. named after the total number of those “prosperous people” who live in the “robber states”.

You are somehow modestly hushing up this point and considering this Leninist thesis to be obsolete. You write that on the basis of this distorted understanding of the modern world, the RCWP interprets Lenin’s statement about “a handful of countries“ at its own discretion, written when three-quarters of the planet were still colonies.

You justify this by the fact that it is possible to reduce the question of the struggle against imperialism to exclusively anti-Americanism, which is characteristic of many national bourgeois states and the corresponding political forces. This, of course, should not be done, we agree with you. But the core of Lenin’s theory of imperialism, along with its economic basis, the monopolisation of production, is the proposition that a handful of leading imperialist powers, which have carried out the division of the world and are fighting for its redivision, are plundering all the other bourgeois countries under imperialism. Today, the essence of imperialism has not changed. The importance of the “handful” and its influence in today’s world has definitely increased in comparison with Lenin’s time.

Now this handful is headed by the United States of America. The rest play the role of squatters. Do you disagree? Is Greece an imperialist country? Or even the much more powerful EU countries? By and large, none of these countries today can disobey the United States, cannot show independence, which is remarkably confirmed by the entire practice of imposing sanctions against the Russian Federation. And even clearly to their own detriment! Don’t you see it? From our point of view, it is a very big mistake not to see that today a handful of the most powerful predators, led by the United States and NATO, are forming “a solid basis for the imperialist oppression and exploitation of the majority of nations and countries of the world, the capitalist parasitism of a handful of the richest countries!” The political practice of the behavior of the EU countries and other leading imperialist powers in connection with the conflict in Ukraine has shown that there is almost no independent policy of the EU countries, there is the fact that these countries are dancing to the tune of the United States, even to the detriment of their economies for the sake of the hope of continuing to rob the rest of the world in the future. The U.S. is carrying out the most advantageous operation: it is crediting, ideologically and politically formalizing fascism that is hanging over the peoples of the world, hostile to them and destroying even bourgeois democracy. At the same time, it significantly weakens the EU countries, at least in the short term, and strengthens their presence in this market.

An analysis of events suggests that if Russia did not possess nuclear weapons, it is quite possible that it could have suffered the same fate as Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. But given the power of the defense potential of the Russian Federation, inherited from the USSR, the imperialists of the United States and the EU have chosen the tactics of reviving fascism in Ukraine and setting it against Donbass and the Russian Federation. Their pumping of weapons and the political aggravation of the situation on the line with Donbass, as many countries and parties admit, if not forced, then pushed the Russian authorities to start preventive military operations.

A flawed theory of “fascism for export”?

It must be said that some of our and foreign comrades are embarrassed by the very term “fascism for export.” It reminds some of the concept of “exporting revolutions,” which the Communists do not support. Someone primitively interprets it as a real export, i.e. the export of fascism. Moreover, after being translated from the great figurative Russian language, the essence may be difficult to grasp for foreign comrades. We do not hold on to the term, for us it was born as a journalistic image. More important is the very essence of the phenomenon – fascism in foreign policy. Special attention should be paid to the assertions of the Greek comrades that the RCWP in its analysis repeats the harmful theory of “fascism for export.” They even went so far as to say that “Fascism for Export” is a bourgeois theory that was first put forward by Russian bourgeois political forces during the 2006 Orange Revolution in Ukraine.

We are embarrassed to make this remark, but, first of all, it is blatantly untrue. The analysis of manifestations of fascism in foreign policy, which we often call “fascism for export” in journalism, was first carried out, including with our participation, by the Honored Worker of Culture of the RSFSR Boris Lavrentievich Fetisov and published in 2009 by the Russian socio-political newspaper Narodnaya Pravda. After that, it was discussed, agreed and adopted as a position at the plenum of the Central Committee of the RCWP. In 2012, the Greek comrades mention that there was a serious discussion in the pages of the ICE magazine. At the same time, they consider that the warning made by the KKE in 2014 that this theory will lead to a wrong course of collaboration with bourgeois political forces has been fully confirmed in practice.

We assert that practice has fully confirmed our analysis and foresight. And the divergence of our assessments is caused by the departure of the Greek comrades from the standpoint of the scientific approach and, as a result, the rejection of the Comintern definition of fascism. The comrades do not speak openly and directly about this, but write in a very intricate way: “However, it should not be forgotten that this definition, made by the Comintern, was formulated during a period of serious polemics on the part of a number of Comintern leaders, and it was precisely in practice that its inability to show the connection between fascism and capitalism and to take this into account in the strategy of the international communist movement was manifested.”

It’s strange and even painful to hear. Did Dimitrov’s definition fail? Let us remind you: “Fascism in power is an open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialist elements of finance capital, a special form of class rule of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not a supra-class power, nor is it the power of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpenproletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist reprisals against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. Fascism in foreign policy is chauvinism in its crudest form, cultivating zoological hatred against other peoples.”

In our analysis, we are talking about fascism in foreign policy! Fascism consists in the rejection of democratic forms of bourgeois rule and the transition to open bourgeois imperialist terror. In the modern world, most of the most developed bourgeois states use various forms in their domestic politics with the appearance of bourgeois democracy, refraining from exercising dictatorship in an openly terrorist form. The international arena is a different matter. We assert that after the defeat of (we are sure) temporary socialism in the USSR and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, there has been a negative change in the balance of forces determining the situation throughout the world. First, in the absence of examples of socialist countries, capital launched an all-out offensive against workers’ rights in domestic policy. Secondly, the imperialists are trying to solve their internal problems by means of external expansion. In foreign policy, world imperialism, and above all its shock troops represented by the imperialists of the United States and the NATO countries, began to act much more unbridled, aggressively, without looking back at the bourgeois-democratic norms of international law and so-called public opinion. This is exemplified by the massacres of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria, threats against the DPRK and Iran, and the initiation and support of today’s bloody conflict in Ukraine. In the words of V. I. Lenin, “we have before us a completely naked imperialism, which does not even find it necessary to clothe itself in anything, believing that it is already magnificent.”

We regard the ongoing escalation of tensions in the Middle East and Ukraine as the spread of neo-fascism – “fascism for export.” “Fascism for export” is an undisguised terrorist imperialist policy of violence and bloody solution of the interests of world imperialism, the core of which is finance capital, which ignores all laws and norms of international law. This is a modern form of fascism. At the same time, chauvinism in its crudest form today manifests itself in the statements of US presidents about evil empires, about rogue states, about the special responsibility of the United States for the fate of the entire world, with the conclusion that they have been given the right to decide everything!

The denial of this fact, the reactionary domination of the United States, is detrimental to determining the position and tactics of the struggle of the Communist Parties. Hence your skeptical attitude to the manifestations of fascism in foreign policy – “fascism for export” – and even your rejection of the Comintern’s definition of fascism. And in the end, this led to a mechanical transfer of assessments from 1914-1917, the time of the First Imperialist War, to the current situation.

You write that the criticism of the RCWP is unfounded and unfounded, but we reflected all these points in the Report of the Central Committee to the March Plenum (26.03.2022) “On the attitude of the RCWP to the military actions of the government of the Russian Federation and the armed forces of Donbass in Ukraine”. You can read the report, and we are fully prepared to answer questions and criticisms. Only people who are not confident in themselves are afraid of criticism. The RCWP is confident in its position and ready to clarify relations.

You, dear comrades, write that “on the one hand, the RCWP pays lip service to the imperialist war, which is the result of inter-imperialist clashes, and on the other hand, by declaring the ‘protection of the people of Donbass’ and the alleged ‘denazification’ of Ukraine, it actually supports Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the imperialist war and the Russian bourgeoisie, which it regards as the guarantor of the struggle against fascism.”

But this only shows that you have not understood, in Lenin’s words, “the fundamental economic question, without the study of which nothing can be understood in the appraisal of modern war and modern politics (here and hereafter the editor’s emphasis), namely, the question of the economic essence of imperialism.”

Of course, the war for the Russian bourgeois class, which is much weaker and in the process of establishing imperialism, is also becoming imperialist, since bourgeois Russia is defending its interests, its desire to exploit the gas and oil pipelines itself, including the country’s human resources. But this does not mean that the working class of the Russian Federation is indifferent to the prolonged, persistent and aggressive attack on Russia by the forces of the United States, NATO and the EU, that we do not notice the use of open fascism as a weapon in Ukraine, that the prospect of repeating the fate of Yugoslavia, Iraq or Libya is more preferable for the working class of Russia than the oppression of the domestic bourgeoisie. Today, the military actions of the Russian Federation are no longer aimed at seizing resources and markets through the subjugation of Ukraine, but at protecting the interests of bourgeois Russia, Russian capital and even the integrity of the country. We do not support the authorities and do not call for all forces to rally around them, as the CPRF does, on the contrary, we call for using the situation to explain the true causes of the tragedies we are experiencing and to organize the struggle against capitalism, for socialism and the restoration of the USSR. But we are not simply calling for an end to the war, because that essentially means calling for an end to the war against fascism. With real fascism, which is fed and directed by the biggest imperialist predators, which calls itself the successor of the fascists of 1941-45, which today openly uses civilians as human shields. There is no way we can do that. We believe that it is possible and necessary to beat the fascists with any weapon with the involvement of all possible forces. At the same time, a conscious factor must be introduced into it, i.e., agitation for the development of the anti-fascist struggle into a struggle for socialism.

And the calls for the defeat of one’s own government in this war do not correspond to the essence of the moment, do not contribute to the approach of the revolution, since there is no corresponding situation, and today, in the words of Lenin, it is not yet possible for the revolutionary movements in all the belligerent countries to coordinate and cooperate with each other. The victory of the United States and NATO today will be the victory of the advancing fascism. The intensification of fascism of regimes is observed in all EU countries, especially in the Baltic states.

This point is very difficult to understand, because there is a great temptation to simply transfer the assessments of the First Imperialist War to the present day.

Criticism of the KKE

You write that the RCWP unfoundedly accuses the KKE of “mistakes” as well as of a lack of solidarity with the people of Donbass. This, of course, is not the case at all. Of course, we admit that you sympathize with the people of Donbass and condemn the fascist manifestations of the Kiev regime. Together with the communists of Donbass and Ukraine, we are grateful to the KKE for the consistent protests that have been carried out since 2014, including from the rostrum of the European Parliament.

But this is solidarity and support for the victims, the protection of the suffering and oppressed population, and we, as a party, first of all support the struggle of this people themselves against the fascists, and we ourselves participate in it to the best of our ability, helping the formation of communist forces in the republics.

We take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the deputies of the KKE who, for their political activities against the war, were included in the official “black list” of the reactionary regime in Kiev. But let me tell you that our comrades-in-arms in Donbass are directly involved in hostilities, suffering losses both in the wounded and in the lives of comrades. Our mutual friend, the head of the Workers’ Front of Donbass, Mykola Belostenny, who fought in 2014-15, went to enlist in the militia at the military registration and enlistment office, but his 69-year-old has not yet been hired. Today he works as an ambulance driver, sometimes transporting the wounded, including soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, from Mariupol to the hospitals of the DPR under fire. And the guys who are younger are fighting. And the fact that the Russian bourgeoisie, not at all for ideological reasons, is compelled to help their struggle, does not negate its just character and absolute necessity.

Inner-Party Processes in the RCWP

The Greek comrades note: “Recent events threaten to be a crushing ideological and political blow to the RCWP, as evidenced by the so-called ‘Conference in Support of the Struggle Against Fascism in Ukraine’, held on March 20, 2022 at the headquarters of the Central Committee of the RCWP.”

As you know, certain tensions have arisen in our Party in connection with this question. There are even defections of unstable comrades from the Central Committee and from the ranks of the Party. And we have to note with regret that, voluntarily or unwittingly, the comrades of the KKE contribute to these processes, including by accepting the signature of a group of young people, allegedly from the organization of the Russian Youth Union (Bolsheviks), under the Statement of the 42 parties, although we told you that they are in fact provocateurs trying to seize the brand and website of the Komsomol. You did not react to this and even repeated this disinformation in the newspaper “Rizospastis” for the general reader, in fact misleading about the position of the RCSM(b). We think that such actions also do not contribute to the strengthening of comradely relations between our parties.

In addition, we note your attempts to interfere in our domestic political work with the voice of opponents of our party. So, you write to us: “… It is with great sadness that we observe your joint activities with Russian far-right, nationalist organizations, such as the Other Russia party (the National Bolsheviks).”

We have already given explanations on these issues on the party’s website and in the TR newspaper, which you may have read. The Other Russia is by no means a socialist organization, but it is by no means a far-right party. It is not really a party, because it does not have clearly defined class positions, but it does not support private capitalism, and one of the populist slogans is “Capitalism is shit!” These are mainly young people, they are not so much nationalists as patriots of the Soviet past and the greatness of the USSR, in which all peoples occupied a worthy place. In their luggage the hoisting of the red flag over Riga (November 17, 2000), for which the comrades received real prison sentences. Their representatives are fighting in Donbass not for the Russian world, but against the fascists. We are trying to introduce elements of class consciousness into this youth subculture, including through the example of Lenin’s understanding of the national pride of the Great Russians. We don’t always succeed, but quite often we succeed. We have been cooperating for many years and will continue to do so.

Поэтому мы бы пожелали вам прежде, чем делать выводы, посоветоваться с нами. В любом случае мы не собираемся молча терпеть извращения нашей позиции и даже самих исторических фактов.

The fact that the Donbass militia often includes not the most advanced, but various Orthodox, Cossack, national-patriotic, and even anti-communist elements, does not at all change the nature of the anti-fascist struggle. It is impossible to win with the avant-garde alone, as Lenin taught. It is necessary to attract and use any forces, it is necessary to beat the fascists with any weapon. And it is no coincidence that the core of the resistance to the Nazis was made up of miners and tractor drivers, as even President Putin was forced to admit. And you shout the guard when “in the name of the struggle against fascism the road is opened to co-operation with the opportunist forces, with the Social-Democrats, with sections of the bourgeoisie.” Damn it! We will learn from the USSR and Stalin.

The RCWP allegedly embarked on a dangerous political path

In conclusion, we are compelled to categorically contradict you with regard to the statement of the International Department: “With this letter we call on you to reconsider your position, which not only does not conform to the founding declarations of the ICO and the ECI, but also cuts you off from the line of the successive forces of the international communist movement.” Allow me to know who gave you the right to single-handedly determine the boundaries of the successive or inconsistent forces of the communist movement? Both the CIE and the ECI, as we know, have a procedure for collective consideration of issues and decision-making. In our opinion, here again you have the same element of communist arrogance to which we have already referred, and which has ruined many parties with a glorious revolutionary past.

In conclusion, we openly say that, of course, we agree with your statement: the RCWP has embarked on a dangerous political path. Only we did this in the depths of the CPSU, fighting its degeneration and Gorbachevism, we did it in 1991, when, in response to Yeltsin’s ban on the activities of the CPSU, we replied that in 1941 there were even tougher banners and established the RCWP. In 1993, when they participated in the defense of the House of Soviets, shot by Yeltsin from tanks. We have quite consciously embarked on the path of struggle, and we are well aware of the danger of deviating from the principles of Marxism-Leninism. We learn from the Bolsheviks and Lenin: “It is possible to defeat a more powerful enemy only with the greatest exertion of forces and with the obligatory, most thorough, careful, cautious and skilful use of every ‘crack’ between enemies, even the slightest, of any antagonism of interests between the bourgeoisie of different countries, between different groups or types of bourgeoisie within individual countries, as well as of any possibility of gaining a mass ally, even the slightest. Even if it is temporary, shaky, unstable, unreliable, conditional. Whoever has not understood this has not understood a grain of Marxism and of scientific, modern socialism in general.”

Only people who are not confident in themselves can be afraid of temporary alliances, even with unreliable people. We are self-confident, therefore, respecting you, we reserve the right to defend our Marxist-Leninist approach to political practice.

Let us not falter on the chosen path!

With friendly greetings and wishes to think about the issues raised.

19.05.2022Leningrad

The article was sent and published on the Solid website

The post Russian Communist Workers Party: On the Class Understanding of the Struggle Against Fascism and the Mistakes of the “Leftism” of the Greek Comrades appeared first on They Shall Not Pass.

By Henry Jackson

We warn all Greek Communists that the US State Department seems to have considerable influence among the leadership of their Greek Communist Party (KKE). For we have discovered that the KKE has parroted a statement of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in their embarrassing denunciation of Russia’s “recognition of the ‘independence’ of the so-called ‘People’s Republics’ in Donbas” made on February 22, 2022.¹ I refer to the KKE’s designation of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic as “so-called People’s Republics”. This “so-called” designation comes from Blinken’s response to the Russian State Duma’s request to President Putin to recognize the independence of the two Donbass Republics. Blinken said on Feb. 16, 2022, “The Russian Duma has stated that it plans to send to President Putin an appeal to recognize the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics as “independent.”² Not only has the KKE leadership joined with the US State Department in denouncing Russia’s recognition of the Donbass Republics, but it also obediently calls those republics “so-called People’s Republics,” just as Blinken does. Moreover, KKE even copies Blinken’s use of quotation marks around “independence” and his misspelling of ‘Luhansk’ for Lugansk!

The Donbass People’s Republics were founded in 2014 after the ‘Maidan’ coup in Kiev overthrew the elected government of the Ukraine. It all started on February 21, 2014 with a demonstration of citizens around the statue of Lenin in central Donetsk to protect the statue from Ukrainian fascists who had vowed to tear it down³ [ed.: see photo in vid at marks 751 and 822]. The demonstration was organized by members of the Communist Party of the Ukraine (KPU), led by Boris Litvinov. Both Communists and non-Communists in Donetsk wanted the federalization of the Ukraine, Litvinov told Loic Ramirez in an interview with Le Grand Soir. He explained that people in the different regions of the Ukraine–Central, East, South, West—had different ideas of the future of the Ukraine, so the suggestion was that with federalization each region could pursue their own ideas. Nobody in the Ukrainian government, however, wanted to listen to what the people wanted, even though Article V of the Ukrainian constitution says political power rests with the people, Litvinov related. Finally, the Communists began to organize a People’s Congress of all the different Donetsk movements and political parties in accordance with traditional Russian direct democracy known in old Russia as “Veche”. By April 6, 2014, the people had given the Communists the papers of 80% of the delegates of the Congress. Twelve thousand people filled the square in front of the government building in Donetsk to present their demands for a People’s Congress to the government [ed.: see photos in vid at marks 1213-1236 ]. A nationalist militia was defending the building. The people said they would stay there until morning. Ultimately, the people dispersed the militia, took over the building and founded the Donetsk People’s Council or Soviet, with Litvinov as President. Later in 2014, on 8 October, the Communist Party of Donetsk (CPD) was officially founded out of members of the KPU in the Donetsk area, with Litvinov as general secretary. The CPD became the only real political party officially registered in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR), Litvinov claims. “Donetsk has always been a Communist country,” explained Litvinov. “Collectivism is in the heart and blood of many people here. Whether you like it or not there have been and will be Communists here,” he said.

At the time of the founding of the People’s Republic, the Communist Party had 15 deputies in the Donetsk Soviet. Later in 2016, after the situation had calmed down, the Communists were brushed aside and removed from power by Russian liberals. The number of Communist deputies was reduced to 3, then to two after the death of one on the battlefield, who was not replaced; then since 2016 the CPD has had no deputies in the Soviet but only sympathizers. So, the Party turned to building itself up, so that by 2022, it has 1100 members. These members have played a big role in defending the Republic. Communists have been dying in eastern Ukraine fighting the fascists the of Kiev regime for ten years. Such were the heroes, Arseny Pavlov (“Motorola,” assassinated by Ukraine secret service in October 2016), Mikhail Tolstykh (“Givi,” assassinated in February 2017), and Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko (assassinated in August 2018) [ed.: we could always use pictures of these guys]. Also there was Vadim Zaibert, early a member of the People’s Council (Soviet) of the Donetsk People’s Republic. As Galina Petrova of Left Russia wrote in 2016, “In defense of the DNR, the Communists have made a very significant contribution. For example, there should be three deputies from the CP DNR in the People’s Soviet. Yet one of them, Vadim Yakovlevich Zaybert, commander of one of the largest compounds of the Donetsk militia, died at Debal’cevo,”⁴ the site of a major battle in early 2015. Other Communists fighting for Donetsk included: “Anatoliy Hmelevoy…He is currently the second secretary of CP DNR, but in the past has been the first secretary of the Slavyansk city committee of the KPU, he has been many times elected as deputy of the Verhovna Rada (parliament of the Ukraine)…When Ukrainian fascists went to war against DNR, Hmelevoy defended his Slavyansk from within [Igor] Strelkov’s detachment. ‘It was hot’,remembers Anatoliy Petrovich. Well, now it’s not easier, especially if you are a dedicated principled communist,” wrote Left Russia.

But why does Donetsk defy the central government, Ramirez asked Litvinov again in the 2022 interview. “The Ukraine is no longer a sovereign country. It is an instrument” of NATO, explains Litvinov.⁵ “It is necessary for us to defeat fascism,” he said. But in this war, isn’t Russia imperialist? asked Le Grand Soir. “Russia is capitalist,” answered Litvinov, “but it is not imperialist.” Litvinov compared the present Donbass war of national liberation to the Spanish Civil War. Wars of liberation today often unite bourgeois nationalists with revolutionary socialists, as also occurred in China’s war of liberation against Japan. Litvinov quoted Mao Tsé Toung: “When imperialism launches a war of aggression against a country, the various classes of that country…can unite temporarily in a national war against imperialism.” All the other contradictions between the ruling class and the exploited classes of the same country “temporarily pass to second place and a subordinate position,” explained Mao. Similarly so, in Donbass, argues Litvinov.

In conclusion, the Donetsk People’s Republics was founded by Communists, is governed by a People’s Council or Soviet, and with the Lugansk People’s Republic is conducting a national war of liberation lead by Communists fighters. In Lugansk, the ruling governmental body is the People’s Council of the Lugansk People’s Republic. Although the Kiev regime has cut off pension payments to retirees living in Donbass, the People’s Republics with the help of Russia have restored pension payments.⁶ This all adds up: the Donbass Republics are “People’s Republics.” This article refutes the KKE-State Department anti-Communist propaganda that the Donbass Republics are not really People’s Republics.

References:

1 http://www.solidnet.org/article/CP-of-Greece-On-the-recognition-of-the-independence-of-the-so-called-Peoples-Republics-in-Donbas/
2 https://ua.usembassy.gov/russian-duma-resolution-on-eastern-ukraine/
3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpcV9r4H0g8 This video includes Loic Ramirez’s interview with Litvinov, which is a main source for this article.
4 https://leftrussia.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/donetsk-the-third-extraordinary-congress-of-the-communist-party-of-the-dnr-took-place/
5 https://www.legrandsoir.info/l-art-du-possible-la-position-des-communistes-face-a-l-invasion-russe-de-l-ukraine.html This is the article that Ramirez wrote based on the interview with Litvinov noted above.
6 https://anti-empire.com/huge-russia-to-start-paying-out-pensions-of-donbass-retirees/

The post Greek Communist Party Copies US Secretary of State Blinken appeared first on They Shall Not Pass.