Introduction

The ongoing World War III (WWIII) presents the global revolutionary movement with vital tasks. It makes it necessary and imperative to organically interconnect the tactics of the anti-imperialist struggle with the struggle for the strategy of socialist revolution and the perspective of communism.

The urgently needed anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, national-liberation, national-independence, anti-fascist, etc. tasks can be achieved effectively and consistently by a frontal revolutionary movement, in which the communists play a pioneering and leading role. This is in turn possible to the extent that the communists also spearhead the theoretical and ideological struggle by linking these objectives to the revolutionary perspective of socialism in an organic, substantiated, scientific and convincing way, to revolutionary social transformations that pave the way for the socialist revolution.

In order to best serve these tasks, the World Anti-imperialist Platform (WAP) was established and is being developed. The main interrelated aims of the WAP are: 1. The coordination and organisation of the anti-imperialist struggle; 2. The ideological struggle against opportunism and revisionism that act to undermine the movement; 3. The consolidation of the consistent revolutionary and internationalist communist forces, without the leading role of which the victorious anti-imperialist struggle of the peoples is unattainable.

In the WAP we consider necessary the broadest possible rallying and mobilisation in the frontal anti-imperialist struggle, of forces and tendencies with different ideological and political starting points and tendencies. However, we are convinced that the optimal way of organising and escalating the anti-imperialist struggle cannot be consciously planned without its organic interconnection with the struggle for socialist revolution.

Anti-imperialism and socialism/communism, in their social/class and ideological/political content, are two distinct but organically interrelated components of a single revolutionary process, a single movement.
The basic precondition for the strengthening of the anti-imperialist struggle today is the reconstitution and strengthening of the communist movement on a national, regional, and global scale, on the basis of the creative development and application of contemporary revolutionary theory and methodology.

WWIII has brought to the surface a plethora of ideas, scenarios and approaches to the rapid shifts taking place in the balance of power. Currently, the anti-imperialist movement is being approached by forces inspired or influenced to some extent by ideologies and ideological constructs in which concepts and doctrines of “geopolitics” are predominant.

If we seek a truly scientific approach to the issue, we must make a clear distinction between two levels of approach:

1. On the one hand, there is the actual objective historical process in the development of which historical subjects are involved based on the objectively available resources and means of pursuing their actions. The crystallisation of this process leads to the respective changes in the balance of power, the poles of attraction and/or repulsion of power and the corresponding (old and new) decision-making centres.

2. On the other hand, there is a plethora of different levels of reliability or unreliability of ideas, approaches, perceptions, speculations, working hypotheses and so on, through which people attempt to understand, describe, explain, and predict the above phenomena.

Geopolitics as ideology and propaganda of the capitalist class

Geopolitics is a direction of bourgeois ideology, a handmaid to every strategic and tactical pursuit of the “collective capitalist” at national and international level (and therefore of the ruling class’s leading political personnel). Geopolitics is often given a scientific veneer, with corresponding courses, degrees, university positions, “research centres”, etc.

As a widespread direction or trend in bourgeois political thought and propaganda, geopolitics is rooted in the extreme over-exaggeration or even absolutisation of the role of geographical factors in the life of society and in history. According to its ideologies and approaches, the whole flow of the history of human society is directly related to geographical terms and geographic location, in combination with Malthusian and neo-Malthusian ideas of demography, and even with racist concepts of social Darwinism. According to these concepts, not all races and nations are equal. On the contrary, there is a hierarchy between superior races/nations and inferior ones. Moreover, there is always insufficient “vital space” for the “superior and rising nations”, hence the legitimacy of claiming “vital space”, which leads to constant revisions of various physical borders, etc. Therefore, geopolitics as a rule functions as a necessary foundation for the ideology and propaganda of the aggressive foreign policy of imperialism.

While it emerged in its basic ideological directions from bourgeois public written discourse at the end of the 19th century in colonial Britain, France, Sweden, etc. however, as a sphere of ideological framing of the war and political aspirations of the warring imperialist camps, it flourished during the First World War. It was then that the Swedish pan-germanist political scientist Johan Rudolf Kjellén formulated the term “geopolitics”, describing the state as a geographical and biological organism. Since then, geopolitics has also been organically linked to the practical, ‘institutional’ applications of racism (eugenics, the imposition of sterilisation by court order, concentration and extermination camps for undesirables, control and repression of immigrants, ethnic cleansing, persecution of revolutionaries as forces ‘undermining national purity’, lobotomies, etc.).

During the interwar period it flourished in Italy, Germany, militaristic Japan and elsewhere, where it served as the “foundation” of the official doctrines of fascism, nazism and monarcho-fascism. It provided the ideological basis for the misanthropic and genocidal practices of the regimes of the anti-Comintern fascist axis.

The agents of fascist geopolitics officially organised and disseminated on a wide scale the propaganda of the ideas of revanchism and retaliation for the “unjust character” of the Treaty of Versailles against Germany. What they actually sought was to satisfy the imperialist aspirations for the redistribution of colonies and spheres of influence for the benefit of the German financial oligarchy, which they presented as a supposedly “natural aggression to claim necessary vital space” on behalf of the entire “supreme German nation” and the “Aryan race” …

After World War II, geopolitics blossomed in the United States and in some other imperialist countries as an ideological tool of anti-sovietism/anti-communism during the cold war, as a means of achieving the neo-colonialist aims of the financial oligarchy of imperialism. A distinctive feature of geopolitics is expressing the claims of the major imperialist states and their trans-state organs, coalitions, etc. for world domination, “world order” and, if possible, “world governance”. In any case, geopolitics has over time been associated with various versions of racism, chauvinism, nationalism but also with versions of cosmopolitanism.

Racism is a mishmash of unscientific and irrational beliefs about the supposed biologically determined physical and spiritual inequality of the human races and about the decisive influence of racial differences on the history and culture of society. Common to all racism is misanthropism, prejudices about superior and inferior races, the ones who are supposedly destined to be the sole creators of civilisation and domination and those who are incapable of cultural creation and hence are doomed to be exclusively dominated, subjugated, and exploited.
Nationalism, as bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology, psychology and politics perceives the nation as a supreme — non-historical and transcendental of class — unity, as a harmonious whole with identical basic interests. The interests of the ruling class are here projected as “nationwide”, while in relation to other nations, the nationalists put forward the idea of their own national supremacy and exclusivity. An extreme form of nationalism is chauvinism, the characteristic feature of which is an insistence on “national exclusivity”, the prevalence of the interests of one nation over the interests of other nations, national arrogance, hostility, and hatred towards other nations.

Cosmopolitanism is the reactionary bourgeois ideology/utopia with geopolitical implications, which is directed against the autonomy of the state and national sovereignty, against national traditions, national culture, and patriotism. This ideology is particularly widespread in the era of imperialism, since it aims towards the unhindered freedom of capital of the multinational monopoly groups on a planetary scale, free rein, and impunity for the financial oligarchy. The agents of this ideology consider anti-imperialism, any national liberation movement, any struggle for national and popular sovereignty “obsolete” (in this respect, the supporters of the revisionist doctrine of the “imperialist pyramid” agree with the reactionary bourgeois utopia of cosmopolitanism, with the only difference being the attempt to present this alignment with the strategy of imperialism as “the only revolutionary one”!).

Proletarian internationalism is opposed to all forms of racism, nationalism, and chauvinism, as well as to bourgeois cosmopolitanism, which advocates the integration of nations through the violent assimilation and enslavement of their peoples by imperialism in terms of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Marxists see the prospect of the rapprochement and conglomeration of nations through objective social development, through the law governed path towards unification of humanity under communism, in a process that crosses through the liberation, emancipation and self-determination of nations, through the flourishing cultural prosperity of each of these nations as organic elements of the unified humanity’s culture, on a completely voluntary basis.

Based on all the above, geopolitics certainly is not and cannot be considered a science. It is based by definition on a predominantly superficial, subjective and irrationally charged, or even highly obsessive perception of reality, especially when unresolved contradictions emerge due to the accumulation of changes in the balance of power on a regional and global scale.

In conditions of impending and/or ongoing military conflicts, geopolitics becomes particularly popular in the circles of the public opinion and common sense of everyday consciousness.

Despite its popularity in conditions of conflict, however, geopolitics is unable to rise above its immanent methodological inadequacies and its bourgeois reactionary ideological limitations. Geopolitical narratives are rife with unstable references, teetering towards a variety of different ideologies, pseudo-philosophical ravings, and irrational elements.

In its narratives, apart from the exaggeration of the geographic factor, many different factors are invoked at will, which makes it a version of the so-called “factor theory”. This type of “theory” attempts to describe and explain structure and movement, balances, imbalances, and conflicts by invoking certain “coequal” factors: economy, demography, geography, military power, religion, morality, technology, culture, “race”, etc. The inability to organically interconnect and prioritise the factors leads to a chaotic vicious circle through which it is rather impossible to distinguish cause-and-effect relationships, laws, and law-governed processes. Ultimately, anything can affect everything, and out of this maze of undefined, chaotic interactions, anything can emerge… In this way, it is impossible to produce substantiated and systematic scientific knowledge capable of objectively describing, explaining, predicting and being an effective instrument of human action.

As a rule, its proponents are not concerned about the existence within its narratives of contradictions, disparate elements, even irrational mystifications, typical of the ideological constructions/dogmas of nationalism, chauvinism, etc. I would like to point out that if some advocates of geopolitics show elements of acumen in their remarks, this is in no way due to the scientific validity of this field of ideological activity. On the contrary, any insightful remarks they may make are achieved in deviation from the irrational tradition that historically characterises this field, so it is rather due to their own individual erudition and insight, their own self-education and understanding of social theory, philosophy, political economy, etc.

As a rule, professionals of this kind (university professors, journalists and “analysts”, rambling politicians and other representatives of the ideological apparatus of the ruling class) cannot rise above the scientifically veneered propagandistic schematisation and systematisation of a narrative framework, according to the current ideological agendas for the justification of predetermined decisions taken by the political staff of the oligarchy of capital, the national or supranational bodies and institutions they serve (governments, transnational bodies such as NATO, EU, etc.).

At the level of the bourgeois geopolitical scriptwriting, peoples cannot be acting subjects, but expendable “resources” used to carry out the “national & supranational goals of the elites”. Therefore, they de facto fail to notice the class content in the interests of the real acting subjects behind every war, while the only subjects they acknowledge and promote are state formations/nations and coalitions of states. In practice, for geopolitics, the acting subjects can be, above all, the ruling classes, and their instruments at the national and supranational/transnational level (coalitions of states, etc.). Thus, the class essence, the contradictory and law-governed character of the system, comes to the surface in an inverted form, which not only conceals its essence, but presents the respective accomplishments and predeterminations of the strategy of imperialism as a one-way street…

An account of the historical context for the emergence of narratives on “multipolarity”

A systematic engagement with the history and main trends of geopolitics is not within the scope of this paper. For the sake of ideological debate here, I will make specific reference to that version/sub-variant of geopolitics which is nowadays projected as “multipolarity”. The debate concerns certain trends within and around the anti-imperialist movement of our time, which for various reasons resort to the aforementioned version of geopolitics.

Initially, the term “polarity” was introduced into the discourse of geopolitics, political science and international relations in the 1970s, within the context of needing to describe and explain the terms of the then dominant bipolar system of the Cold War.

Multipolarity emerged as a term and a trend in geopolitics after the end of the Cold War. It implies the existence (or the pursuit of the emergence and simultaneous predominance) of multiple poles/centres of power in the world, composed of the strongest powers/states, which are not bound to any specific alignment after the collapse of the bipolar world. According to some “multipolar” narratives, none of these “poles of power” (military, cultural, political, economic, etc.) should outnumber the others, nor seek to extend its influence over the others. As of 1989, with the end of the Cold War, the bipolar world (US and USSR) ceased to exist. Since then, many “well-meaning” journalists have been indulging in opinion pieces on the “future just world”, which somehow “ought” to be “multipolar, fair and equitable”, “subscribing to international law, morality and equality”, fostering mutually beneficial cooperation and “fair competition in the world market”, leaving room for each independent country to have its own domestic and foreign policy, etc., and so on.

At that time the confrontation was characterised by the antagonism between two rival socio-political and economic systems, two camps: capitalism and the countries of early socialism. Particularly after the crushing defeat of fascism-nazism — with the decisive role of the USSR and the anti-fascist popular liberation movements led by the communists — other types of relations of power were created on a global scale which favoured the development of anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, and national liberation movements on all continents where until then, the main imperialist countries had maintained their conquests and colonies.

At that time, even to the most ignorant on matters of social science, it was clear that there was an irreconcilable conflict between two poles (camps, coalitions), between “two worlds” led by two superpowers: the first led by the USA and the second led by the USSR.

Among them there was also an ambivalent and contested space, a multitude of countries that were then and often still are called “third world countries”. One after another, these countries were gaining their independence in various ways and at various levels. The breadth and depth of the socio-economic and political independence they achieved emerged as a function of the class character of the socio-political and ideological fronts that led these anti-colonial anti-imperialist movements, of the balance of power at the national, regional, and international levels, and of the effectiveness of internationalist assistance from the camp of the early socialist countries. This explains the range of diverse socio-economic changes and reforms historically observed in them in the decades after WWII.

These changes cannot be understood scientifically without the theoretical and methodological investigation into the position and role reserved by the existence of the camp of the early socialist revolutions and the countries that emerged from them. They must be examined as a historically necessary escalation of the basic contradiction of the global capitalist system, as a fundamental condition and manifestation of the general crisis of this system, i.e., the fact that the superior system/socio-economic formation of private property (capitalism) is beginning to lose the justification of its historical existence due to the progressive development of humanity in the direction of socialism, communist unified humanity. It is precisely the manifestation of revolutionary situations that blossom into victorious early socialist revolutions within the countries that constitute the weak links of the world capitalist system that creates conditions for an upsurge of historical optimism and new types of liberation movements in the countries that have been subjected to overexploitation by the parasitic imperialist countries.

The contradiction between the poles of the imperialist core and the periphery of the colonies and conquests of that core is also a manifestation of the basic, fundamental contradiction of the global capitalist system: the contradiction between capital and labour.

With the research established by Lenin in his work “Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism”, it becomes clear that in the monopoly stage, the escalation of capital accumulation on a global scale creates multiply mediated1) mechanisms for extracting surplus wealth on a planetary scale in the form of monopoly super-profits.

It was precisely as a result of the creation and strengthening of the camp of early socialism that — at the level of the balance of power, but also at the level of the realisation of this fact — another level of capacity for struggles for the liberation/emancipation of the colonies emerges, as a result of which the range of options for the predatory parasitism in terms of genocide, of the imperialist countries against the colonies and their possessions, semi-colonies, dependent, semi-independent and formally independent countries is shrinking.

In this way, during the monopoly stage of capitalism (imperialism), after World War II, rapid changes in the global balance of power emerge, which are directly related to the qualitatively different manifestations of the essential fundamental contradiction of the capitalist system:

1. The dipole of the contradiction between capital and wage labour, between dead labour of the past (embedded in the material means of production) and living labour of the present (which productively activates these material means).
   This fundamental contradiction continues to manifest itself, but no longer in a clear form, in the context of each individual country. It is precisely the new type, the escalation to a higher level of the law of capital accumulation discovered by Marx, that leads — as Lenin demonstrated in the field of the science of political economy — to the monopoly stage, in which two additional organically interrelated contradictory dipoles are revealed, manifested on a radically different scale, as qualitatively and essentially differentiated:
   • capitalism — early socialism and
2. imperialist center — colonial/neo-colonial periphery.
   It is precisely the triumph of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the subsequent great early socialist revolutions in Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. that has a catalytic effect on the emergence of this third dipole, as expressed by the extremely popular but inaccurate term “third world”.
   Each of these organically interconnected opposing dipoles, and all of them combined, constitute fields of distinctive struggles between the forces of progress and regression: wage labour and capital, early socialism, and decaying imperialism (monopoly capitalism), anti-imperialist/anti-colonialist movements and imperialism/neo-colonialism.
   In this way, in the 20th century, a new level of internationalisation of the economic, social, and ideological-political life of the world’s population on a global scale was launched. The world system, the global division of labour and the respective positions and roles of countries and regions of the world are articulated in their further development through the escalation of these contradictory bipolarities, which are not static, but are subject to the historical necessity of the law of the global unified revolutionary process of the transition of humanity to socialism, which is the becoming, the process of the formation of communism, of unified humanity.
   The process of this revolutionary transition cannot be understood in a non-historical, linearly mechanistic way. It is a process characterised by an extraordinary and increasing complexity and diversity that is not only due to the multiply mediated relations between the fundamental contradiction of the capitalist system and its necessary derivative manifestations under imperialism. They are also linked to the extraordinary diversity of residual pre-capitalist forms and structures. These remnants — insofar as they are not completely transformed by capitalism — function as historically necessary and extremely convenient for the monopoly overexploitation of imperialism, forms of manifestation and historically specific reproduction of inequality. In this capacity they are organically intertwined with the law of the “weak link” and thus with the extremely contradictory process of the rise and fall of revolutionary movements in the historical confrontation between the forces of revolutionary progress and counter-revolutionary reaction/regression.
   Contrary to the reactionary and irrational self-delusions of the ideologues of the financial oligarchy (who were quick to celebrate ghoulishly, joining the cries of the bourgeoisie along with the lamentations of some shipwrecks of the “left” of defeat and renunciation of even the idea of revolution) the temporary defeat of some early socialist revolutions (in the USSR and in the European socialist countries) did not in any way signify the death knell of the “end of history”, the definitive and irrevocable domination of capitalist barbarism, the cancellation of the inevitable historical course of humanity towards communism.
   Indeed, the world labour and revolutionary movement has suffered an unprecedented strategic defeat. The tragic consequences of this counter-revolution were even expressed in demographic losses amounting to genocide. The people of the movement tragically experienced the counter-revolution, its consequences, and its impact, often in the form of existential anguish.
   This defeat was of strategic importance and was tragically experienced by the people of the revolutionary movement. However, in terms of the logic of history, on a world/historical scale, it was only a tactical defeat. There is no strategic total victory in history without individual tactical defeats of the ultimate victors. Defeats through which the camp of the forthcoming victorious revolutions regroups at all levels (theoretical, practical, organisational, etc.) to finally defeat the forces of counter-revolution definitively and irrevocably.
   The tragedy of this defeat in no way negates the historical necessity of the global revolutionary process, the historical legitimacy of the revolutionary transition to a unified humanity. In the period since these counterrevolutions, the historical law governed process has continued to escalate through the contradictions mentioned above and other more complex and mediated ones. Underground fundamental processes (not visible on the surface by the common mind, untrained in dialectical science, and its variant that remains locked into metaphysical schemas stereotyped by dogmatism and revisionism) continued the work of the destructive and creative forces of historical becoming.
   The Soviet Union and the European countries of early socialism were once again transformed into a field ripe for predatory exploitation, being violently dragged back into the capitalist system. Imperialism, by means of unbridled revanchism, tried and to a considerable extent succeeded in subordinating them to its own system of global division of labour, positions, and roles. For this purpose, all legitimate and illegitimate means, all deceitful and inhuman ways of imposition, manipulation and subjugation have been employed.
   This process was characterised by the recolonisation of these countries and peoples by the imperialist camp led by the USA and its supranational organs. This process of recolonisation found fertile ground in a historically unprecedented process of primary accumulation of capital. The hitherto historically known process of Primitive Accumulation of Capital took place in its classic form as a process of historical transition from feudalism to capitalism, as a process of the abolition of feudalism and the feudal guild relations of society by the emerging capitalist relations of production. This process was spearheaded by the then revolutionary rising bourgeoisie together with its allies, the nascent working class and the poor peasantry of smallholders and landless peasants who suffered the evils of the declining serfdom. Successive early bourgeois revolutions were swept away by feudal counterrevolutions and restorative processes, until finally the capitalist system (long since dominant in the field of economy) was established at the level of the bourgeois superstructure. This took place with the late bourgeois and bourgeois-democratic revolutions, in a process which in the major European countries lasted for more than five centuries.
   On the contrary, the unprecedented historical form of Primitive Accumulation of Capital beginning anew was led by the newly emergent parasitic bourgeoisie of Russia and the other countries of the post-Soviet space. This partially incomplete accumulation took place under conditions of global domination of late imperialism.
   Crucial for understanding the historical context of the emerging narratives of multipolarity are the tectonic shifts in power marked by the development process of the early socialist countries that are continuing socialist construction, with the prominent role of the historically unprecedented rapid development of the People’s Republic of China.

Geopolitical doctrines on “multipolarity”
New impetus has been given to various forms of geopolitical/geostrategic public discourses among the ideological constituents of the ruling class of various countries after the victory of the bourgeois counter-revolution, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the imposition of reactionary processes of dismantling the coherent framework of the planned socialist economy during the capitalist restoration in the countries that emerged from the dissolution of the USSR and overall in the countries of early socialism in Europe.
Particular reference should be made to the adoption and application of geopolitical views of “multipolarity” in Russia after the bourgeois counter-revolution in the USSR. The historical specificity of the ideologies put forward by the newly emerging bourgeoisie in Russia is organically linked to the historical specificity of its emergence and formation: from the structures of the “shadowy” underground economy that parasitized on the weaknesses of the central planning of the USSR in the sphere of circulation, to the appropriation of ever deeper positions and roles in the economy and society, in proportion to the escalation of the bourgeois counter-revolution and capitalist restoration. They literally enriched themselves by treading on corpses, by the predatory privatisation of the wealth and infrastructure created and defended by generations of Soviet citizens with their sweat and blood.
That explains their ambivalent character. For decades they have been grovelling, begging the imperialist powers for a share and a role in the world economy. They have been getting kicked around and having doors slammed in their face on all sides. World imperialism did not relish the defeat and dissolution of early socialism in the USSR and Europe to have in its place even petty capitalists with aspirations and ambitions. It was and is aiming to pre-emptively eliminate all competition, through further fragmentation, the total colonisation of the post-Soviet formations, by turning them into vulnerable and subservient sources of raw materials, energy and cheap labour power. For this goal, a slimy submissive comprador bourgeoisie (of the Latin American banana republic-type like that of the late Yeltsin) is more than enough. Whatever independence and autonomy this bourgeoisie has had stems from the constant battering and humiliation at the international level, from the fact that Russia has not yet been dissolved, and — above all — from the mighty arsenal inherited from the USSR.
The present Russia is by no means the USSR and should not be equated to it. However, even the present counter-revolutionary Russia with the anti-Soviet/anti-communist excesses of its leadership, has to cloak its actions with references to the glorious anti-fascist victory of the USSR, “anti-Nazism”, etc., because it owes any power it may hold, to the achievements and legacies of the October Revolution and building of socialism.
The Soviet and later Russian spy, political scientist, diplomat, and politician Yevgeny Primakov2) (1929-2015) was the mastermind behind the Russian Federation’s pursuit of foreign policy and diplomacy based on the doctrine of a Russian variant of “multipolarity”, the operational/military version of which is known today as the “Gerasimov doctrine” (after the Russian Chief of the General Staff, General Valery Gerasimov).

• Pursuit of a “multipolar world” governed by a group of independent powerful states, capable of counterbalancing the unipolar power of the USA.
• Seeking to regain control of the post-Soviet space, playing in it the role of a pole of re-coalescence and integration of countries it influences and inspires.
• Highlighting and strengthening in geopolitical terms Russia’s “Eurasian role” in Central Asia and beyond.
• In this context, it is necessary to establish close alliance relations with Asian countries (especially China, India, Iran, etc.), capable of bringing forth the weakening of Euro-Atlantic economic and monetary dominance in the global economy and the international division of labour, as well as strengthening tendencies of coalescence within the EU.
• It is of vital importance to prevent further expansion and strengthening of NATO in its periphery, by activating military-technical or even military operational measures of power projection and deterrence.

There are two versions or aspects of narratives about “multipolarity”:

1. The first is confirmatory, pointing out the situation in which there is no singular dominant pole, or two of them with undisputed power, but a situation of uncertainty in which a few existing or even potentially rising poles — centres of power — emerge as coexisting, competing, or cooperating.
2. Of an ethical and/or practical political nature: “multipolarity”, as a desirable idealised state of affairs or even as “strategy”.
   The 1st version (confirmatory in character) contains, in my opinion, the rational core of this argumentation: it ascertains, captures some moments of an ongoing process, even if it does so in a static, fragmented, and disjointed way, without scientifically examining where, why, and how this process came about and without being able to make a scientific prediction of where this situation is going to lead.
   First of all, we must point out that no complex developmental process exists in the form of a steady state, as any kind of static “multipolarity”. This is particularly true of society as the most complex system which constitutes an organic whole.
   Any organic whole — no matter how multifactorial the context of the preceding or even contemporary reality within and from which it emerges — may well include various trends and dynamic directions of further development, however, in the course of the developmental process itself, these diverse tendencies converge until they are polarised as components of a fundamental antithetical dipole which gives rise to its development, a moving and driving contradiction, which constitutes the law-governed basis of its self-development. This is the fundamental contradiction of the system from which all further derivative contradictions arise.
   Therefore, in the process of the scientific research and the dialectical reconstitution in the cognition of the structure and history of society as a developing (organic) whole, any partial existence of a forming diversity of poles and contradictions can only constitute a historical moment of the early stages of a new whole being formed, with its own essential contradiction.
   Therefore, both versions of the “multipolarity” narratives mentioned above are highly unscientific, limited, static and restrictive. Both the approach which regards “multipolarity” in a confirmatory way as a given and unchangeable state of affairs, and the one which perceives it as an ideal and insurmountable future prospect, as an imperative to which the development process must be directed towards, as a … “strategic goal of the anti-imperialist movement”.
   Therefore, if there is a rational core to the multitude of views on multipolarity, it is at best reduced to the static confirmation, pointing out the existence of various poles, at some stage of their development process.
   And in the case where multipolarity is perceived as a moral/political and ethical principle, as some kind of ideal, or — even worse — as some kind of strategy the pursuit of which is asserted as a basic strategic purpose of an anti-imperialist movement, it is certain that if such an extremely short-sighted, vague and disorienting goal of this kind is adopted, it will ultimately have disastrous consequences for the movement. In any case, the multipolarity narratives, however “realistic” they may seem to some, are highly unhistorical, undialectical, and therefore, unscientific, and ungrounded.
   Of course, in terms of the discourse articulated by institutions of foreign policy and diplomacy, certain versions of a desirable “multipolarity” may have a certain resonance and functionality. In the case of those who evangelise a world in which there will no longer be unipolarity, supremacy and domination on a planetary scale of, say, a coalition of coercion headed by the United States as the “sole superpower having claims”, the functionality of this narrative has some meaning, some significance in tactical terms. This significance could be expressed in slogans along the lines of: “Down with the imperialist aggression of the US-led axis!”
   In any case, however, the insistence on “multipolarity” as a strategic horizon indicates a tendency and attitude in which the weaker pole or poles, the “cheated” ones in the present balance of power, claim a better position for themselves in the future order of society or even beg for this position, in cooperation with other weaker and “cheated” peers. So, if the discourse of multipolarity is articulated in this context, it is a rather short-sighted and shallow move to ideologically frame tactical objectives, which in no way could constitute a strategic perspective of an anti-imperialist movement with a revolutionary impetus and objective.
   This clearly pertains to the multipolarity beliefs and rhetoric of the official political and propaganda discourse of the newly formed, current ruling class in Russia.
   Here I am not even referring to those shades of “multipolarity” ideologies that are organically and overtly linked not only to versions of mysticism, obscurantism, regression, and reaction, but also to versions of fascist practices and ideologies. Indicatives are the cases of the pursuit of the constitution of geopolitically significant centres/poles based on reactionary tendencies that are more akin with conspiracy theories, such as “anti-globalism”, “conservative values”, ecclesiastical and theological structures of orthodoxy, pan-Slavism3), pan-Turkism, every nationalist “great idea”, etc. The pursuit of e.g., the establishment of a pole of this “multipolarity” based on “national Russian exclusivity”, the “Russian idea”, a metaphysical “special mission of the Russian people”, the “Russian idea”, the “Russian world” — and that in a highly multinational state like the present Russian Federation — denotes a nationalist and chauvinist position. Russian nationalism, in a spirit of conservatism and reaction that feeds national division, cannot be posited as the counterpoint to the russophobic hysteria of imperialism.
   Versions of the “multipolarity” discourse can also be observed in declarations of a constitutional character, in official texts of international organisations, such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and other alternative coalitions in the present historical context.
   A similar rhetoric is often expressed with regard to the foreign policy of the PR of China, in full conformity with the foreign economic policy model adopted by this early-socialist country at the international level. In all these cases we must take into account the specificity of the international policy and diplomatic language of various countries, which should not be directly confused with the concise scientific and ideological equipment of the anti-imperialist revolutionary movement.

Ethical and moral aspects of “multipolarity”
Does “multipolarity” have anything to do with justice?
Justice is a concept that touches on aspects of ethics, politics, and law. The concepts of good and evil are placed at a higher level of generalisation and abstraction, allowing the formulation of moral judgments about certain moral phenomena as a whole. In contrast to the concepts of good and evil, which morally characterise certain phenomena (attitudes, behaviours, acts, actions, steps, initiatives, omissions, inaction, and so on), justice characterises more specifically the interrelation of certain phenomena, or even the overall assessment of the state of society at any given time, in terms of the interrelation and distribution of good and evil in the relations between people. In this light, through the concepts of justice and injustice, people assess the totality of the social conditions of their existence and form their perception of the need and desirability of maintaining or changing these conditions.
Under the prism of justice, the ways of distribution among people of goods in scarcity (e.g. of optimal access in terms of quantity and quality to material goods and services for the satisfaction first of all of biological needs, of optimal access to creative activities that lead to the development of the individual and to the acquis of culture) are examined. It concerns therefore the way people relate to each other, mediated by access or not to desirable and contested goods. It also concerns the global dimension of the economy and inter-state relations, the relations of exploitation, domination, and subordination on a planetary scale.
From this point of view, if this access is unequal, i.e., as long as the existence of exploitation of man by man is historical necessity, injustice prevails and the prospect of the elimination of this exploitation projects itself as the prospect of justice. However, the objective conditions of this prospect, which arise, are formed and mature historically, are realised in corresponding conceptions of justice. The latter are divided, they differ and clash, to the extent that the material interests of individuals, groups (classes), countries, groups of countries and society, of humanity as a whole, are divided, differ and clash, while the respective dominant conception of justice, is consolidated and internalised at the level of everyday practice within the dominant relations, but in general, it is also imposed by the institutions of the dominant material interests as a pseudo-generic justice, which supposedly expresses the whole of society (through law, institutions, etc., but also by invoking “national interests”, international and/or “universal”, “democratic”, “anti-authoritarian” principles, values, institutions, etc.).
These perceptions change historically and regionally. For example, in antiquity, slavery was seen as the natural state of slaves (according to Aristotle, “speaking tools”), while feudalism and serfdom were considered in their decline by the rising bourgeoisie to be an unjust and undignified anachronism that deserved to be overthrown.
Until recently, the neo-colonialist super-exploitation of peoples by imperialism was considered an “insurmountable normality”. However, with the escalation of WWIII, the anti-imperialist/anti-neo-colonialist sentiments of hundreds of millions of people on the planet are beginning to snowball as a claim for justice and dignity in international economic relations.
From a certain point of view, justice can be projected and function as the moral dimension of the respective conditions and limits of the consent of the underprivileged, of those subjected to exploitation, oppression, or (when these tolerable limits are exceeded, which is perceived as social injustice, corruption, and so on) of the claim to change their conditions of existence. In the latter case, we have clear symptoms of the manifestation, on a mass scale and at the level of everyday consciousness, of the moral decay and bankruptcy of historically obsolete economic and social relations and institutions, but also of the balance of power that is radically changing.
However, provided that revolutionary Marxist-Leninists do not wish to indulge in abstract moralism and arbitrary deontological constructions from a safe distance, they do not confine themselves to philosophical reformulations of the experiences that cause the above symptoms in the subjects of everyday consciousness, nor to schemes outside of the historical place and time, as if they were timelessly unchanging “principles and values”. Abstract ideas, understood as an unhistorical self-righteousness, and feelings of justice cannot replace the theoretical (philosophical and interdisciplinary) investigation of the actual possibilities and the law-governed necessity of a way out of the social deadlocks experienced by people as conditions of injustice at the local, national, and global level. They cannot be a substitute for the struggle to achieve the tactical and strategic goals of the real revolutionary movement.
The bourgeois conception of justice is linked to formal equality (egalitarianism) and natural law theories. In the bourgeois “neoliberal” ideologies of “unadulterated meritocracy” and in the practices of post-modernist identity and rights politics, the complete degeneration of the demands of the rising bourgeoisie for equality, justice and freedom is manifested today. The neoliberal revision of bourgeois values that is predominant today is manifested with such extreme social minimalism that it not only renounces the prospect of social revolution, anti-imperialism and any radical demands of the working class and the people, but also renounces any positive definition of the fight against injustice, inequality and oppression, from every positive platform, means and ways of making demands, from every concrete interconnection of revolutionary tactics and strategy. It is limited to negatively critiquing the conditions that led to the consolidation of the now undisputed inequality and oppression, or to the conditions of their reformation in order to ensure consensus with the strategic choices of the financial oligarchy. Modern opportunism and revisionism operate in a similar way.

Some practical conclusions on ideological intervention and propaganda in the anti-imperialist movement
In the case where “multipolarity” is put forward as an ideal, an expectation of a more just world or, in any case, of a framework for more just international relations, then it is linked to deontological thought and to a certain moral ideal, to some notions of justice based on a certain sense of right.
In this respect, people and groups of people who begin to understand injustice on a primitive level, even in terms borrowed from “multipolar” narratives, are welcome into the movement.
However, there is no reason to maintain and reproduce this static, limited, and restrictive level of awareness as it is, nor is there any reason for it to be promoted as the central concern and purpose of the movement.
Any perception of the people that even partially, even in a static way, reflects the sense of injustice from the dominant regime of imperialism, which is now endangering humanity, can be a certain basis, a starting point for their rallying in our frontal anti-imperialist struggle. But this is not enough. The catalytic intervention of communists armed with scientific revolutionary theory is required to achieve further radicalisation of the perceptions and dispositions of these people.
In any case, this sense of justice is organically linked to the position and condition of some who are or feel wronged or even “cheated” in the international division of labour, positions, and roles, in the global hierarchy of countries and regions. In this sense, even as a framework of protest expressing this sense of right, the rhetoric of “multipolarity” is extremely shallow and pessimistic if it is ever to become a frame of reference capable of inspiring an anti-imperialist movement with a certain perspective. In its narratives, this rhetoric takes as given by default the conditions and limits of the state of a certain type of transitional international relations on the planet. It moves by definition in the realm of hetero-definition, a negative identification with the old world, with the declining and waning imperialist unipolarity under the leadership and hegemony of the United States.
The rhetoric of “multipolarity” disorientates from the realisation of the nature of war and the imperative necessity of militant anti-imperialism, trapping consciences in the ideologies of the bourgeois pseudo-science of geopolitics, in the tail of the capitalist class of certain countries. Therefore, it does not and could not constitute a positive project of perspective that could as a strategically oriented purpose stimulate a mass anti-imperialist movement in a revolutionary direction.

……………
To the extent that geotectonic power shifts and war continue, this fluidity will be reflected in the existence of various attraction/repulsion movements of poles and centres. Hence, the “multipolarity” views will also be reproduced in various forms. This will continue to happen until — through the conflicts and the revolutionary potential that they gestate — the new transitional crystallisation of the global basic contradiction, together with its derivative essential manifestations, emerges more clearly in a new stage, in a new contradictory dipole, with the forces of the pole of socialism and its anti-imperialist allies strengthened in breadth and depth (extensively and intensively), in the event that it emerges victorious from the conflict.
This conflict of the WWIII, which has resulted from radical qualitative and essential changes in the content, forms and acting subjects involved in the resolution of the crux of the contradictions of the time and the conjuncture, in turn, catalytically counteracts all these variables, accelerating, widening and deepening the transformations and projections of the subjects involved.
The rapid resurgence of a new unprecedented wave of anti-imperialism, now capable of dynamically and drastically nullifying to a large extent the potential for super-exploitation of the majority of the world’s population by the imperialist powers (through the siphoning off of enormous surplus value, through various and multiply mediated mechanisms of neo-colonial super-exploitation through the extraction of monopoly super-profits), it is also significantly upgraded through new alliances, coalitions and integrations of an alternative type. The rapid expansion of BRICS at their recent 15th summit in South Africa alone is indicative of the quantitative changes that are now becoming qualitative and essential. We are no longer talking about a numerical aggregation of countries, populations, sizes, economic and military powers, but about a qualitative and substantial leap in the formation of a new pole-centre, i.e., a new subject-in-the-making with a decisive role in the global development process.
These trends are extremely encouraging. However, the revolutionary movement has no room for groundless over-optimism and complacency while life-or-death conflicts are escalating.
The history of early socialism and 20th century anti-imperialism has shown that the viability of the revolutionary camp depends directly on the interrelation of revolutionary and counter-revolutionary forces in the global revolutionary process.
In this correlation, the role of the camp of the socialist countries, the extent and depth of the consolidation of the socialist transformations within them, and the degree of their constitution as a collective historical subject are catalytic and decisive.
The degree of their constitution as a collective historical subject is in turn a function of the level of economic integration and internationalisation of socialist relations of production, the degree of collective subordination of their societies to scientific planning, and therefore of their monolithic unity in the face of the remaining lethal forces of shrinking imperialism.
The historical experience of the 20th century has shown that the camp of early socialism was clearly inferior to the imperialist camp, both in terms of its forces and in the degree of integration of socialist economies and societies compared to imperialism. Unfortunately, the “multipolarity” within the socialist camp (with disruptive tendencies that even reached the point of warlike inter-alliance conflicts, and even with elements of nationalist geopolitics) played an undermining and disintegrating role, contributing to the discrediting of socialism and the well-known phenomena of counter-revolutions at the end of the 20th century.
Only with a qualitative and substantial upgrade (a radical broadening and deepening) of the socialist camp as a leading pole will the upgrade of the anti-imperialist camp be achieved, the pulling power of which will strengthen the world/historical tendency of the “non-capitalist mode of development” with a clear socialist orientation for the countries that break the shackles of imperialist neo-colonial dependence.
In this way, through the victorious advance, military or peaceful, of the revolutionary pole (socialist and anti-imperialist), the process of the early socialist revolutions will be completed and revolutionary processes will be launched in the developed capitalist countries as well, in the centres of imperialism, since the financial oligarchy, having lost its sources of parasitism, will no longer be able to use the resources of monopoly superprofits to manipulate the working class in its countries of origin (through bribery, deception, divisions and brute force).
Then socialism will begin to develop (sublating the capitalist and pre-capitalist remnants, free from external sabotage and interference) on its own (scientific-technical, productive, and cultural) basis and will move rapidly towards communism, towards the maturity of society, towards a unified humanity.
Then the time will come for the mature and late socialist revolutions, with the victory of which the ground for any trace of “multipolar” phases and conceptions will have disappeared, since capitalism and all exploitative relations will have been eliminated from the historical arena.
No ideological construct of “multipolarity” is even capable of putting the complexity of this dialectic of strategic and tactical goals on a rational scientific basis.
These tasks call for a conscious struggle for the qualitative and essential theoretical, practical, and organisational upgrading of the world anti-imperialist and communist revolutionary movement, which confirms the strategic importance of achieving the aims of the World Anti-Imperialist Platform.

Notes
1) Multiple mediation, in dialectical logic and methodology of scientific research, refers to the type of connections, relations and interactions that characterise the contradictory complexity of a system that constitutes an organic whole. These are non-linear, complex, multi-level, contradictory, obscured, not directly visible on the surface, connections the investigation of which requires systematic scientific research. e.g. For some, the mere fact of the existence of formally independent states in Africa, is evidence of the absence of imperialist dependence, overexploitation, etc. while ignoring the profound and multiply mediated mechanisms of surplus value extraction in the form of monopoly superprofits, unequal exchange, overpricing and underpricing, loan agreements, currency manipulation, government takeovers, extortion, regime change, arms programmes, foreign bases, military interventions, etc. that are typical of neo-colonialism.
2) Primakov is ideologically and politically positioned in right-wing social democracy. He sought for Russia a version of capitalism with state-monopoly regulation of the Keynesian type. His popularity soared when, as prime minister of the Russian federation and while on his way to an official visit to the United States in 1999, upon learning of US and NATO bombings of Yugoslavia, he instructed the pilot of his aircraft to make a 180° turn over the Atlantic and return to Moscow. It was a cowardly symbolic act of dignity towards the US leadership. A leadership that in its unbridled arrogance had staged the complete national humiliation, the international vilification of counter-revolutionary Russia also on a symbolic level: with the media coverage of the official presence of the Russian Prime Minister alongside the coverage of the bombing of the fraternal for the Russian people Yugoslavia! Of course, it would have been of much greater value — and not only symbolic but mainly practical — if Mr. Primakov had allowed the then President of Belarus, Lukashenko, to deliver some S-300 anti-aircraft anti-ballistic missile batteries to the heroic Yugoslavia, which would have practically prevented an attack on it by the Western powers. However, Russia’s leadership at the time was far from adopting a dignified defence policy even at that level.
3) An internet search of the word “multipolarity”, as a rule, leads to the notorious irrational “philosopher” Aleksandr Dugin. Evidently, we are dealing with aggressive marketing over-promoting this version of eclecticist beliefs of a fascist hue, at the heart of which is consistently anti-Sovietism/anti-communism, the resurrection of reactionary doctrines of 18th-19th century slavophiles, a primitive version of russian nationalism, mysticism of orthodoxy and the projection of Russia as the bearer of a metaphysical mission of “Eurasianism”. The connections of these circles with the terrorist Nazi organisation “Golden Dawn” in Greece and with a multitude of far-right, nationalist, and fascist groups from Turkey and many other countries are anything but accidental. As long as some people base their “anti-imperialism” and their disposition for “independence” on bourgeois geopolitical narratives of “multipolarity” on the resurrection of the obscurantist “Eurasian” mysticism of the 19th century, seeking “philosophical depth” in the irrational fascist ravings such as Dugin’s, they are practically paving the way to fascism!

The post “Multipolarity” or internationalist anti-imperialism? appeared first on They Shall Not Pass.

Essence and characteristics are different but closely related. Each being or movement has innumerable characteristics, but their essential characteristic is the most important aspect that distinguishes them from one another. In short, essential characteristic corresponds to the ‘What’ of 5W1H (what, who, where, when, why and how). To understand this ‘What’, we need to answer the question of the ‘Why’. ‘What’ and ‘Why’ are the two main components of a goal. Without knowing ‘What’ and ‘Why’, we can never know ‘How’.

War is a struggle. The battle between those waging a just war and those waging an unjust war is one of the starkest class struggles. The highest level of class struggle is a revolutionary war, and the category of revolutionary war includes an anti-imperialist war.

What should we make of the Ukraine war that broke out in eastern Europe in 2022? This is a question about the character of the war in Ukraine. More specifically, a question about its essential character. In other words: what is the war in Ukraine, and why did it happen?

The simple and clear answer is that it is an anti-imperialist and antifascist war, a liberation war, and a preventive war. This describes the war from the anti-imperialist camp’s viewpoint, and directly, from the standpoint of Russia. For Russia’s opponents, the war has the opposite character.

The war in Ukraine is an anti-imperialist and antifascist war. Waged by Russia, it is an anti-imperialist war against imperialist NATO and also an antifascist war against the Ukrainian fascist forces, puppets of imperialist NATO. Russia called the war in Ukraine a ‘special military operation’ at the beginning of the war in February 2022 and revealed three goals: denazification, demilitarization, and protection of its population.

The elimination of the Azov battalion in Mariupol in May 2022 was an example of the denazification, the seizure of an underground arsenal in Bakhmut in May 2023 was an example of the demilitarization, and the merger of Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson was an example of protection of the population.

Further, President Putin first referred to the conflict as a “war” in December last year and did so again at the Victory Day ceremony on 9 May this year. While the war in Ukraine appears to be a war between the Russian and Ukrainian armies, but it is in reality a war between Russia and NATO. The actual operational direction of the Ukraine’s military forces lies with NATO, and its soldiers are trained and its weapons are mainly provided by NATO. Other NATO forces are also directly and indirectly involved in the war in Ukraine in various forms and ways, whether as commanders or soldiers. Without NATO’s involvement, the war in Ukraine would have been over long ago. In fact, it would never have started.

The war in Ukraine is a liberation war. It did not begin in 2022 but in 2014. Its roots go as far back as 1991, with the counter-revolution in the Soviet Union and eastern European socialist bloc. Indeed, the imperialist’s plan to use Ukraine against Russia goes back to the 1950s and even earlier.

NATO’s eastward expansion policy since 1991 is one of the root causes of the war in Ukraine, and the Maidan coup in 2014 and the subsequent eight years of fascist genocide against the Russian people is one of the direct causes of the war in Ukraine. Therefore, from Russia’s point of view, the war in Ukraine is a liberation war to free the Russians and the Ukrainian people from fascist and beastly repression.

The war in Ukraine is a preventive war. The imperialist powers have continuously pursued isolation, division, and collapse strategies against Russia. From the infamous ‘grand chessboard’ strategy of Zbigniew Brzezinski to NATO’s eastward expansion policy and a succession of engineered ‘color revolutions’ to depose independent-minded or Russia-friendly governments in former socialist countries.

In February 2022, NATO was secretly propelling its forces towards a full-scale invasion of the besieged Donbass. Its attack forces were based in Mariupol and spearheaded by the neo-nazi Azov battalion. NATO, which had already invaded and dismantled Yugoslavia in the 1990s, was working on such a plan, so naturally, Russia had no choice but to prepare.

There is a view that defines the war in Ukraine as an interimperialist war. The premise of the argument is that Russia is an imperialist country, fighting in Ukraine for colonies and spheres of influence. According to this view, Russia is no different in essence to the imperialist leaders of NATO, namely the United States and western Europe.

This view rests on an unscientific characterization of Russia’s social character, which in turn is based on a wrong understanding of imperialism. The most egregious case of this erroneous reasoning can be found in the theory of the ‘Imperialist Pyramid’ put forward by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE).

Russia is not an imperialist but a capitalist country with lots of socialist heritage. At the beginning of the retreat from socialism to capitalism, under the regime of Boris Yeltsin, Russia even degenerated into a colony of US and European imperialism. Since then, the country has mainly exported resources not capital. Russia is not a country that lives primarily by exporting capital, importing raw materials and plundering colonies for superprofits, quite the reverse.

The relationship between Russia’s politics and economy is also completely different from that of an imperialist country. In Russia, political circles take the initiative above the economic circles. Many companies, especially in the energy sector, are nationalized in Russia, and they implement the policy of voluntary deviation in which nationalized companies provide cheap supplies to the people and bear their own losses. This is also related to Russia’s socialist heritage.

This is one of the reasons why Russia has not deviated from the line of anti-imperialism even though it is not a communist and internationalist country. Especially in recent years, Russia has joined the unitary anti-imperialist front, along with North Korea and China, and never derailed or wavered from it.

In 2023, the probability of the spread of war in eastern Europe and the outbreak of war in East Asia is rising. In East Asia, Taiwan and South Korea are the most likely places for wars to break out. When the wars materialize, we should call them the Taiwanese War and the South Korean War. An agreement between the President of North Korea Kim Il Sung and the Premier of China Zhou Enlai in 1961 states that when war in either Taiwan or South Korea breaks out, the other will immediately follow. The prerequisite for this agreement is that it has to be an anti-imperialist war. In the current context, it is clear that such a war will have anti-imperialist character. So it can be affirmed that they will happen almost immediately.

The wars in Taiwan and South Korea are anti-imperialist wars, national-liberation wars and national reunification wars. Concretely, a war in South Korea is an anti-imperialist and antifascist war, when we consider the common point with a war in Taiwan, it is an anti-imperialist war.
The wars in Taiwan and South Korea are anti-imperialist wars. They are anti-imperialist wars in which China and North Korea are ostensibly fighting the Taiwanese and South Korean authorities respectively, but in reality they are fighting US imperialism, the true ruling power in Taiwan and South Korea.

The imperialist camp includes Japanese militar-ism and European imperialism which follow US imperialism. Unlike Taiwan, South Korea is a fascist society. It really has fascist evil laws such as the National Security Act and repressive institutions such as the National Intelligence Service. The regime of Yoon Suk-yeol is escalating fascistization by repressing political parties and conducting anti-communist campaigns in South Korea. It describes North Korea as the “main enemy”, insisting on its right to make a “preemptive nuclear strike” and holding huge nuclear war exercises one after another.

Recently, it joined in forming the US-Japan-South Korea trilateral military alliance to create an Asian version of the NATO. Clearly, the war in South Korea has a relatively more antifascist character compared to the war in Taiwan, so it should be considered both an anti-imperialist and an antifascist war.

The wars in Taiwan and South Korea are national liberation wars. Taiwan has been one with the Chinese mainland since the middle ages, and currently, only 1-2 percent of Taiwanese are ethnically Taiwan aboriginal. The vast majority of Taiwan’s people are Chinese. Meanwhile, Korea has been a single nation for over 5,000 years.

The war in Taiwan is a national-liberation war to free the Chinese people living in Taiwan from the domination of foreign imperialist powers. The war in Korea is a typical national-liberation war aimed at establishing the sovereignty of the Korean nation on a nationwide scale, not only in the north but also in the south, driving out the US army that entered South Korea as an occupying force in September 1945, and finally achieving the national liberation that was left incomplete in August 1945.

The wars in Taiwan and South Korea are national reunification wars. Taiwan and South Korea are the targets of the reunification, which is at the very heart of the both China’s and North Korea’s core interests. Taiwan was separated from the Chinese mainland when Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan, and South Korea was divided from the north by the US occupying forces. The people in Taiwan and South Korea have as a result had to suffer the pain of division for more than 70 years.

There is no more important task or need for the Chinese and Koreans than resolving this issue of their countries’ division. There are many ethnic nations in the world that have been divided by foreign powers, and Korea is a representative example. That is why the war in Korea will be a representative national reunification war.

North Korea describes the war in South Korea as the “South Korean Liberation War”. This reflects North Korea’s recognition that it had already been liberated on 15 August 1945 and its determination to complete the victory that was only partially achieved on 27 July 1953. This concept also implies a national-liberation war and a national reunification war. Thus, the concept of the South Korean Liberation War centers on the goal of the war rather than the target of the war — that is, national liberation and national reunification rather than anti-imperialism and antifascism.

Anti-imperialist, antifascist, liberation, preventive, national-liberation and national reunification wars are all just wars. The character of the war is defined depending on one’s position. In this respect, for Marxists and anti-imperialists, the just character of these wars is historically, morally and scientifically proven and undeniable.

As we know, WW1 was an interimperialist war, WW2 was an antifascist war. Following the war in Ukraine, if wars break out in Taiwan and South Korea, WW3 will be in full swing. The common point of the wars in Ukraine, Taiwan, South Korea is that they are anti-imperialist wars. Absolutely, WW3, the anti-imperialist war, is a just war as like WW2, the antifascist war.

A just war may not necessarily be won, but political and moral superiority is undoubtedly one of the main factors that assist in it towards victory. If you have the way and means to achieve the goal of justice — namely, a strong army and exceptional operations — the chances of victory are close to perfection. And if the goal of justice is achieved, humanity has the opportunity to take a great leap forward.

The post The Character of the War appeared first on They Shall Not Pass.

Part 3: Imperialism vs. imperialism?

A long work
The first part has shown how inadequately the CPG refutes the opinions of communists who do not share its views. We have seen that it does not attempt fraternal debate, but resorts to misrepresentation of ideas and disqualifications which take the place of arguments.
In the second part, we have shown the main defects of the idea of the “imperialist pyramid” and concluded that this idea can in no way be considered Leninist.
Now it is time to move on to more concrete questions. Unfortunately, there are many questions that concern us but little time and space to develop the answers: Are China, Russia and other countries like Iran or Venezuela imperialist? Are countries like Niger or Argentina imperialist? Can Cuba be considered imperialist? And so on and so forth. However, due to limited time, we will only be able to cover the most important points. Therefore, we will focus on Russia and China and contrast their non-imperialist character with the states that we consider clearly imperialist: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan. It is possible to include Canada and Italy in the list of imperialist states. But beyond these 7 countries, it seems to us hardly possible to extend the list of imperialist states according to our criteria, the basis of which we will develop in the following pages.
Furthermore, we will explain why the People’s Republic of China is in our opinion socialist, although there is no socialism in it, at least not a mature and consolidated socialism. It could also be said that China is in the first phase of the construction of socialism, that it is, therefore, a primitive, immature and, as such, intrinsically contradictory socialism, with successes and failures, with advances and setbacks.
And we will set out the reasons why the postulates of the CPG and, in general, of so-called “Eurocommunism” are particularly harmful to the communist forces and the proletarian struggle in the world.
As the third part is more extensive than the previous two, it will not be possible to cover it in a single publication. We will have to divide it into several parts.

Brief and concise summary of the “imperialist pyramid” and the CPG study method
In part one and especially in part two of this article we have discovered the political purism of the CPG and its remarkable ability to jump from correct ideas (the rejection of opportunist, reformist and claudicative positions) to purist and chimerical ideas in a single paragraph and sometimes even in a single sentence. We have seen that its position divides communists into two absolutely and irretrievably separate groups: the “true communists” (at the top of which, according to the CPG itself, this party is situated) and the “opportunists” (a group made up of all those who do not share its positions 100%).
We discover that the CPG applies an idealist (in the philosophical and not in the moral sense) logical and not a dialectical-materialist method of analysis. To better substantiate this assertion let us look at what the postulate of Logic says: “a thing is what it is, a thing is or is not, but it cannot be and not be at the same time”1). And now let us look at what the postulate of Dialectics says: In the words of Frederick Engels Dialectics “understands things and their conceptual images essentially in their context, their concatenation, their movement, their formation and decay”2). Georges Politzer adds that from “the dialectical point of view, everything changes, nothing stays where it is, nothing remains what it is”3). Guerrero adds that for Dialectics: “A thing is never what it is. In order to be what it is, a thing has to let itself be what it is”4).
The political purism, the enormous leaps from correct to chimerical ideas, and the use of the logical rather than dialectical method of enquiry are seen in the following quotation:
“The confrontation within the ICM, as the KKE has highlighted many times, has many aspects. For example, it is taking place:

Between the parties that support the co-opting of the CPs into “broader left progressive alliances” and those that struggle for the preservation of the ideological-political independence of the CPs and the strengthening of their ties with the working class and the popular strata.
Between the parties that remain entrapped into the old strategy of “stages towards socialism” and support the participation in bourgeois “left”, “anti-neoliberal”, “progressive”, and “centre-left” governments in the framework of capitalism, and those that have rejected the participation in bourgeois governments and the rationale of stages and struggle for the overthrow of capitalist barbarity.
Between the parties that identify imperialism exclusively with the USA or some powerful capitalist countries of Europe or foreign aggressive policy, and the parties that are based on the Leninist conception that imperialism is monopoly capitalism, the highest and last stage of the exploitative system.
Between the parties that consider that the struggle for peace is inextricably linked to a “multipolar world” that would supposedly tame the USA, fostering illusions about a supposedly “peaceful international architecture”, which is promoted by social democracy and opportunists, and the parties that believe that the capitalist world cannot be “democratized”, that it cannot escape from wars no matter how many “poles” it has, and that it is necessary to strengthen the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism, for the new, socialist society.
Between the parties that consider China to be a country “building socialism with Chinese characteristics” and the parties that believe that socialism has principles that have been violated in China, where capitalist relations of production have now prevailed; that this is a country of the modern capitalist world, which in fact is competing with the United States and threating its supremacy in the imperialist system.”5)

——————–

To give a few examples:

Political idealism (purism): “[…] and those that have rejected the participation in bourgeois governments and the rationale of stages and struggle for the overthrow of capitalist barbarity”. Remarkable aversion of the CPG to any bourgeois government. The CPG seems unable to distinguish between progressive bourgeois governments, on the one hand, and reactionary and counter-revolutionary (philo-fascist) governments, on the other. Reactionary bourgeois governments often disguise themselves as progressive and revolutionary. Instead of denouncing the “disguise”, the CPG, due to its inability to distinguish between form and substance, refuses to cooperate with any kind of bourgeois governments, even if they seek the nationalisation of enterprises of strategic interest, the reversal of privatisations and the deindustrialisation of the country, the strengthening of the country’s military power, the waging of a real war against the big organised crime capitalists, etc. If they are bourgeois governments, there can be no alliances of communists with them, says the CPG.

Logical method of analysis: “Between the parties that identify imperialism exclusively with the USA or some powerful capitalist countries of Europe or foreign aggressive policy, and the parties that are based on the Leninist conception that imperialism is monopoly capitalism, the highest and last stage of the exploitative system.

The CPG cannot conceive in the least that a synthesis between all this is possible, i.e. that it is possible to understand that the USA is the hegemonic country par excellence, that there are other countries which share with it the property of being imperialist, that from such a property emanates its aggressive foreign policy and furthermore that such an understanding means precisely supporting the “Leninist view that imperialism is monopoly capitalism, the highest and last stage of the system of exploitation”. The CPG separates the waters and then is incapable of bringing them back together again, which Moses at least succeeded in doing.

Big jumps: “Between the parties that support the co-opting of the CPs into “broader left progressive alliances” and those that struggle for the preservation of the ideological-political independence of the CPs and the strengthening of their ties with the working class and the popular strata.” 

How correct is the CPG’s position in rejecting opportunism, reformism and, more generally, those political and ideological positions which seek to alienate the working class and the other social sectors which share its destiny from the struggle for the new society. How correct is also his demand that the communist parties must preserve their “ideological-political” independence. How correct is also the postulate that the communist parties must strengthen their links with the working class and the popular strata. But all these correct ideas lead to an absolute chimerical purism in which the communist parties end up as sects prevented from forming “broader progressive left alliances”, and thus the CPG leaves the working class and the popular strata alone in a alone struggle against big national and imperialist capital, abandoning all possible good allies of the left to reaction.

——————–

We consider the term “imperialistic pyramid” used by the CPG to be rather imprecise, as it implies that a thing, in this case a pyramid, has a property, in this case that this pyramid is imperialistic (i.e. “the pyramid is imperialistic”, just as saying “the affable ladder” means that “the ladder is affable”). It should be obvious to any reader with average reading comprehension that a pyramid built of stone and surrounded by sand can hardly be imperialistic in itself. Perhaps the pharaohs buried in them were. But the pyramid, incapable of transforming its environment, is nothing more than an inert thing devoid of intellectual or moral qualities that could enable it to be imperialist. We believe that with this term the CPG wants to point out that “the structure of imperialism is pyramidal”. At least that is how we have interpreted it. If we are mistaken in our interpretation of the concept, we are grateful for the CPG’s fraternal clarification.

We have seen that imprecision of terms is a constant in the texts of the CPG.

We have also seen that the CPG bases its arguments on disqualifications, but above all on a revision of Lenin’s theory of imperialism. Now, it seems to us that the idea of the “imperialist pyramid” is not only a revision of Lenin’s theory of imperialism, but (in our opinion) a dangerous attempt to replace it.

The CPG’s “reasoning” is based on a moral and subjective assumption: “it is capitalist = it is bad”. With this idea in mind, it “weaves” a “sack” into which it puts all “imperialist countries”, which, given its purist assumption (“it is capitalist = it is bad”), includes practically all countries recognised by the United Nations (because very few, if any, countries today meet the criteria of being “purely socialist-communist”). This CPG argument can be translated into a new equation: “(almost) all countries of the world = imperialist countries = imperialism or international imperialist system”. Countries are neatly placed in the bag according to how much “power” they wield (the CPG does not explain why some countries wield more “power” than others, nor in what sense such countries are or are not “powerful”). Once the “sack” is filled to overflowing, the CPG finds that there are stubbornly a few countries at the top of the sack (those with a lot of “power”) and many at the bottom (those who, conversely, have little “power”). From the shape of the sack, which is narrower at the top and thicker at the bottom, the CPG extracts with “imaginative acuity” and “remarkable capacity for abstraction” the three-dimensional version of the triangle: a pyramid, and gives it the title ‘imperialism’ or ‘international imperialist system’. In short, all the countries of the world recognized by the United Nations (and probably also those not recognized) would be imperialist and together they would form the ‘international imperialist system’, which is also called ‘imperialism’.

This is the “model” of imperialism proposed by the CPG. We have seen that this idea is contrary to Lenin’s theory of imperialism, although the CPG insists with great vigour on claiming to be Leninist, as if by asserting something it makes the assertion that something.

In its essence, this idea seeks to equate all countries in which the capitalist mode of production prevails with imperialism and thus to abolish the dialectical antagonism between the countries of the world postulated by Lenin, an antagonism which exists independently of the character of the mode of production prevailing in these countries and also independently of the orientation of their foreign and domestic policies. The central basis of Lenin’s theory of imperialism is the realisation that there is a very small group of imperialist countries and a large majority of countries which are plundered and exploited by these countries. This constitution comes about because such imperialist countries have huge monopolies and powerful banking systems which enable them to export gigantic amounts of finance capital or banking-industrial monopoly capital. The expansion of capital is followed by military expansion, which explains, for example, colour revolutions, the economic collapse of states (as in Greece, for example), coups d’état and wars.

In our opinion, it is essential not only to defend the Leninist postulate of a bunch of imperialist countries, but also to reject the attempt to revise and even replace Lenin’s profuse theory of imperialism with the (in our opinion infantile) idea of the “imperialist pyramid”, because the latter, as we have already seen, leads to dangerous and harmful conclusions from the point of view of the anti-imperialist struggle, the anti-fascist struggle and the struggle of the workers of the whole world for the conquest of political power and for their liberation from wage slavery.

One of the most dangerous findings of the CPG, derived from its concept of the “imperialist pyramid”, is the position it has taken on the conflict in Ukraine and how it classifies Russia and China as enemies of the international working class and the peoples of the world, even on the same level as the USA, the imperialist countries of the European Union, Japan and its belligerent spawn NATO.

These are the reasons that have led us to give a response to the CPG.

A big mess

The CPG, in its familiar tone unbecoming of a political debate among communists, claims that the assessment of the World Anti-Imperialist Platform that there is no economic data to justify calling China or Russia imperialist “once again seeks to distort reality”6) and “refuses [it refers here to the World Anti-Imperialist Platform] to face reality”.7) And to demonstrate “conclusively” that our opinion is wrong, it launches a veritable “hodgepodge” of data supposedly proving that China and Russia are imperialist:

“The WAP argues that “That there is no economic data to justify characterizing China or Russia as imperialist. These are countries that do not live by superexploiting or looting the world. They do not put other countries into military, technological or debt slavery” and that “Russia and China are not aggressive imperialist powers but, on the contrary, are targeted by our enemies because they stand in the way of the USA’s complete global domination”.

With these statements, the WAP once again seeks to distort reality. It is as if China and Russia do not participate in the G20 summits, the meetings of the 20 most powerful capitalist states of the world, together with the USA, Germany, the UK, France, etc. It is as if the Chinese and Russian monopolies do not export capital to other countries, aiming for the profit that comes from exploiting the labour power not only of the workers of their own country, but also of many other countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, wherever their monopolies develop. It is as if the Russian “Wagner” private army is deployed in Africa for charitable reasons and not to defend the interests of the Russian monopolies operating there. It is as if China is no longer moving in a similar direction to safeguard the Belt and Road Initiative by military means. It is notable that this initiative includes the small but very important in geographical terms state of Djibouti — whose debt to China amounts to 43% of its Gross National Income — where China’s first military base outside its borders was inaugurated in 2017.”8)

Here we have just read two paragraphs with a real “hodgepodge” of data. The second paragraph begins with an allusion to the G20, then lists some member countries, then alludes to the existence of exploitative Chinese and Russian monopolies, then stumbles over the Russian private army ‘Wagner’, then wanders along the “belt and road” to Djibouti and its 43% debt to China, and finally ends with a visit to the first Chinese foreign military base…

The CPG seems to think that a cascade of disconnected data proves something. In reality, however, what emerges is a gelatinous amalgam of unrelated data that is difficult to “grasp”. Perhaps that is even their intention. We do not know…

To respond to the above assertions, one has to dissect this gelatinous and convoluted paragraph and go step by step through the list of incoherent facts presented as arguments.

China and Russia belong to the G20

Let’s start with the first statement in the quote: China and Russia are members of the G20. 

The attentive reader will surely ask: What does this prove — that these two countries are imperialist by virtue of their membership of the G20?

Let us look at the full list of G20 members (in alphabetical order): Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America and, the only non-country member, the European Union. The G20 members (the 19 countries and the EU) account for approximately 85 per cent of the world’s gross domestic product, just over 75 per cent of international trade and about two-thirds of the world’s population, according to the G20 website9).

Membership of the G20 alone would make a country imperialist, argues the CPG. It claims this without having made the slightest attempt to prove it. If this were the case, all member countries would be imperialist. Thus, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina, Australia, Turkey and Brazil (to name but a few) would be as imperialist as the UK, France, the US or Germany (coincidentally, the only countries mentioned in the above quote from the CPG text). This would be a direct deduction from the CPG statement.

In our opinion, the imperialist countries are those listed in the quoted paragraph of the CPG (plus Japan and eventually Canada and Italy). The others are large countries (some with reactionary political systems and governments and others with progressive political systems), but they cannot be called imperialist. The characteristic of being a big country and the characteristic of being an imperialist country are not synonymous. We have pointed out in our statements that “this line [we refer to lines of reasoning such as those of the CPG] is based on a wrong theoretical premise (that every large economy in the capitalist world must automatically be imperialist)”.10)

Even more curious is the fact that the CPG mentioned the G20 but not the G7. Let us look at the list of G7 countries (in alphabetical order): Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.11) Here we have a real list of the “world’s most powerful capitalist states” and it does not include China, nor, today, Russia.

In 1998, Russia joined the forum, which adopted the new name G8 or sometimes also called G7+1. Wikipedia, a notoriously unreliable source, seems to understand the facts better than the CPG. Its website (in its spanish version) claims that Russia joined the forum ‘because of its political weight and not its financial weight’.12) In 2014, imperialist states excluded Russia from the forum over the secession of Crimea and its incorporation into the Russian Federation.

It is striking that the CPG has decided not to mention the G7 as the international forum of the “most powerful capitalist states in the world”, but the G20. The reason seems to us to be that the G7 does not include Russia and China, which the CPG insists on considering among the “most reprehensible” countries in the world, but the G20 does. It should also be noted that of the G20 members, the CPG only mentions those countries that are generally considered imperialist and avoids mentioning those for which there is no such consensus. It is these argumentative quibbles that the idea of the “imperialist pyramid” makes possible. This construction allows the CPG to arbitrarily move an imaginary demarcation line up and down the “imperialist pyramid” and place it wherever it suits them. Apparently, the G7 sits “too” high up in its pyramid, leaving out Russia and China, so the CPG shifts its imaginary demarcation line down a little until it finds “something” that includes both countries. And then it calls this “something” the “most powerful capitalist states in the world”. It is fortunate for the CPG that the G20 is not a G80…

The CPG always has the possibility of adjusting its imaginary line of demarcation in its “imperialist pyramid” at will. It can raise or lower it even to the base of the pyramid. This shows that his “theoretical” construction is not scientific, since it can be adjusted at will. Science, on the contrary, demands that the analytical system be adjusted according to the objective reality independently of the will.

State presence in Russian companies

The same quote 6 lists a number of large Russian companies, followed by an etcetera and the claim that these companies “exploit millions of workers, not only in Russia”, but also in various parts of the world:

“They refer to Russia, where giant monopolies (Gazprom, Rosneft, Lukoil, Rosatom, Sberbank, Norilsk Nickel, Rosvooruzhenie, Rostec, Rusal, etc.) exploit millions of workers, not only in Russia but also in the former Soviet Republics, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Africa, South America, Europe, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, etc.”13)

The authors of the article do not consider it necessary to elaborate on the “data” they present. For example, the CPG list interchangeably mixes companies with and without state participation. However, this distinction is important in assessing Russia’s imperialist or non-imperialist character and cannot be ignored. A state that participates significantly in economic activity is not the same as a state whose main and almost exclusive function is to guarantee private ownership of the means of production.

And Russia is distinguished by a state with relatively high participation in production and distribution.

For example, the Russian state’s share in Gazprom is 50.23%14), in Rosneft it is 50% (indirectly)15), in Sberbank it is 50%16), in Rossatom it is 100%, in Aeroflot it is 73.84%17), in Rostec it is 100%18), in the United Aircraft Corporation (OAK) it is 92.3% (through Rosimushchestvo)19), in Rosoboronexport (successor company to Rosvooruzhenie and Promexport20)) it is 100% (through Rostec)21), in the Moscow Stock Exchange it is 30.1% (through the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, Sberbank and VEB. RF)22), in VTB Bank it is 92.2%23) and even in companies such as Novatek and VK Group the state is represented, albeit only to a small extent (4.5%24) through Gazprom and 5.7%25) through Rostec, respectively) and so on and so forth until there are 668 Russian companies with full or partial state participation. 

The number and size of state-owned enterprises is higher than in most other countries in the capitalist world. State ownership is concentrated in sectors of strategic interest to the country (energy (oil, gas, nuclear and electricity), banking, defence and transport).26)

The Rosimushchestvo report27) shows that there are a total of 668 Russian companies in which the state has a more or less significant shareholding. The absolute majority 563 companies are owned by the Russian Federation through Rosimushchestvo. Of the 668, the state has a 100% stake in 299 companies. In other words: In 44.7% of Russian companies with state participation, the state is the full owner. In 36 companies it has a 50-100% stake. In another 49 companies it has a 25-50% stake, and in the remaining 263 companies it has a stake of less than 25%. It should also be noted that only about 40 companies out of the 668 companies listed in the Rosimushchestvo report are listed on the Russian stock exchange.28)

These facts, as we have pointed out, must be taken into account in assessing Russia’s possible imperialist character.29) The bourgeois ideologues, unlike the CPG, understand them very well:

“In his book ‘Property Rights in Post-Soviet Russia’, UC Berkeley professor Jordan Gans-Morse writes that ‘after the Khodorkovsky incident, everyone’s bureaucrats and law enforcement officials increased government pressure on business. Threats of asset seizures, facilitation of illegal business raids, extortion, unlawful fines or unlawful arrests were threatened’.

More and more companies came under state control, especially in the case of banks and companies in the energy industry. Already in 2016, Joshua Kurlantzick, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), wrote about these issues in his book State Capitalism. How the return of statism is transforming the world. In his opinion, ‘in Russia, state-owned enterprises strangle any potential competitor that might emerge from the private sector. Under Putin, the Kremlin has allowed one or two state-owned companies to dominate almost all leading industries. Each company is staffed by management loyal and faithful to Putin. Companies that have resisted the state takeover have been hit with taxes, regulations and other punishments. Many of the most promising young entrepreneurs have fled the country’.”30)

As indignant as the bourgeois ideologues are about state involvement in the Russian economy, so indifferent is the CPG to it. This quote makes it abundantly clear that state ownership and control, especially in areas of strategic interest to the country, are an obstacle to free capitalist exploitation.

The importance we attach to the participation of the Russian state31) in the Russian economy arises from the role Russia plays today in the struggle against imperialism and the resurgence of fascism in Europe. Probably, the present Russian government was not pushed to adopt an anti-imperialist and anti-fascist position by its own decision, good will or anti-imperialist and socialist sentiments, but independently and even in spite of this will because of NATO’s relentlessly aggressive policy against Russia. Possibly, it was the desire of Russia’s post-Soviet governments to take a different path from that imposed on them by the war policy of imperialism, which never saw Russia as a state that would be part of the sharing of the world, but as another appetizing piece of land to be plundered, like the continents of Africa, Latin America and Asia. From its aspiration to join NATO and become part of the “Western” system of exploitation, Russia eventually reoriented itself towards the East and South:

“Russia is turning away from the West and towards the East. 

‘If there was ever an illusion that one day we could trust our Western partners, that illusion no longer exists,’ Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told state broadcaster RT on Friday. His country will never accept a world order dominated by the United States.”32)

“Lavrov announces Russia’s reorientation of economic and foreign policy towards Asia

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced today that Russia will reorient its economic and foreign policy towards Asia as it antagonises the West over the military campaign in Ukraine.”33)

Since the CPG applies an idealistic and logical method of analysis, it is not at all capable of grasping the importance of the fact described above for the international struggle against imperialism.34)

It is precisely the presence of the state in the economic affairs of the country that has contributed significantly to the fact that the economy of today’s Russia has not been taken over by imperialist capital. In other words, the point of maintaining a Russian state presence in the production and distribution of the country is to guarantee degrees of national sovereignty, to prevent the full colonisation of the Russian economy by finance capital, or rather imperialist capital, and to enable the Russian state, which has been unwilling to place its sources of strategic raw materials under the direct domination of imperialist enterprises and subordinate its chains of production and distribution to those dominated by imperialist states, to cope with the onslaught of NATO.

And Russia’s ability to stand up to NATO coincides with the independence aspirations of more and more countries in the non-imperialist world: 

The World Anti-Imperialist Platform has pointed out in its statements that Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, carried out against NATO and the reborn fascism in Europe, was going to open up new possibilities of struggle in the oppressed world, plundered and outraged by imperialism. For us, the militants of the Communist Party of Chile (Proletarian Action), affiliated to the World Anti-imperialist Platform, the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine was a welcome surprise.35)

Russia’s increasing reorientation towards the East and South has strengthened many of the economies of the countries in these regions and their efforts to become independent from US and EU hegemony.

A weak Russia would be a serious blow to the processes of emancipation against imperialism that are developing in more and more countries. The most recent case is Niger, where the military forces, supported by the broad masses of the people, decided to stage a coup d’état to overthrow the former president of the country, Mohamed Bazoum, a corrupt lackey of France and the USA. On this very important event from the point of view of the struggle against imperialism, the CPG, to our astonishment (again), has maintained a stony silence. On its English-language website not even a negative statement calling for the reinstatement of imperialism’s lackey government can be found.36)

Contrary to the CPG’s assumption, we “face reality”. Even if the CPG does not believe it, we are clear enough to agree with it that there is exploitation of the workers by the bourgeoisie in all countries where the bourgeois mode of production prevails. In Russia as well. It is also clear enough to us that the state bureaucracy exploits the workers in its own country and, of course, this is also the case in Russia. Our defence of state involvement in Russian production is not based on the fact that we ignore the existence of exploitation in Russia’s state enterprises or in the Russian economy in general. 

We express our support for Russia, even if it is capitalist, for the following reasons:

(1) The rates of exploitation of the workers by the state enterprises are lower than the rates of exploitation by the big private monopolies.

(2) The struggle for the final defeat of imperialism is the central struggle of the present.

(3) A strong state is a good basis for building socialism in a country.

In general, workers in state-owned enterprises enjoy stable jobs, higher levels of qualification and job security and social protection.

The presence of the Russian state in Russian enterprises allows for the influence of the broad masses of the people in Russian politics. A state that (almost) only represents the interests of private capital leaves political decisions exclusively in the hands of big national capital and, through it, foreign capital, as is the case in most dependent countries. But at the same time we recognise the inadequacy of such participation and warn of the vulnerability of the Russian state if it does not become more involved in domestic production and control the supply (distribution) chains more tightly, because we believe that it is in the interests of the struggle for the new society that Russia can continue to stand victoriously against NATO and rising fascism in Europe. This requires a strong, guiding, planning state with greater degrees of political participation of the broad masses of people, particularly the working class. More workers in the state sector also means lower degrees of wage exploitation.

We see that the CPG is unable to recognise the positive importance of the present Russian state for the defence of national interests, for the Russian working class and, at the same time, the obstacle it represents for big imperialist capital. The latter coincides with the aspirations of the peoples of the world for emancipation from imperialism. What the CPG does not achieve, the bourgeois press does. Thus, an article in the “Berliner Zeitung” with the headline “Putin rächt sich am Westen: Konzerne werden verstaatlicht — bevor sie ihr Russland-Geschäft verkaufen” (in english: “Putin takes revenge on the West: nationalises companies before they sell their businesses in Russia”) reads as follows:

“The Russian government suddenly takes over the business of Danone and Carlsberg in the country. The two companies had already found a buyer.

The Russian government has taken control of the Russian subsidiaries of Danone and Carlsberg’s Baltika breweries. It is the first nationalisation since the takeover of energy groups Uniper of Germany and Fortum of Finland, which were put under state supervision in April this year.

The Danish brewing group said on Monday that the company had not been officially informed of the move. ‘The Carlsberg Group has acted in accordance with local rules and regulations in Russia and finds this development unexpected,’ Carlsberg said.

Carlsberg had already submitted an application for sale in Moscow

The decree, signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday evening, said Russia was taking the shares in the companies, owned by the French food group and Russia’s leading beer producer, under ‘temporary administration’.

The Carlsberg subsidiary Baltika employs 8400 people in eight plants in Russia. Shortly after the Russian attack on Ukraine, Carlsberg had declared that it was ‘seeking a complete divestment of our business in Russia’. The move by the Russian government caused confusion as Carlsberg had only announced at the end of June that it had found a buyer for the Russian plants. In order to complete the sale, Carlsberg said it had already submitted an application to the Russian regulatory commission. 

If Western companies want to withdraw from Russia, however, they have to accept high discounts. Their Russian assets can only be sold for a maximum of half their price and they have to make a ‘voluntary contribution’ to the Russian state of five to ten percent of the sale proceeds. Ultimately, the sale still requires government approval.”37)

The claim of the article is clear: How could Putin think of nationalising. We welcome these measures and would like to see the nationalised companies remain in state hands. But even if, sooner or later, these nationalised companies will be taken over in whole or in part by the country’s private capital, at least they are national capital and the economic resources circulate within the country and not abroad.

Foreign penetration of the Russian economy

Although the presence of the state in areas of strategic interest to Russia has been a major obstacle to the penetration of imperialist capital in Russia, this penetration unfortunately exists.38).

Let’s look at some facts. 16.71% of Gazprom’s share capital are ADRs (American depositary receipts)39). The issuing bank of these ADRs is the Bank of New York Mellon, based in the United States, New York.

19.75% of Rosneft’s share capital is owned by BP Russian Investments Limited, a British company, and another 18.46% is owned by the Qatari company ‘QH Oil Investments LLC’. In other words, 38.21% is non-domestic capital.40)

33% of Sberbank’s share capital comes from US investors and another 6.24% from European investors. In other words, 39.24% are not national capital.41)

The shares of Novatek, a quasi-private company (as we saw above, through Gazprom the state has a 4.5% stake) are distributed among three main shareholders, two individuals (Russian oligarchs) and one company. The two individuals are the CEO, Leonid Mikhelson (25%) and Gennady Timchenko (23%). The company, which ranks third among Novatek’s shareholders, is not a Russian company, but a French monopoly: TotalEnegrie.42)

The case of the Moscow Stock Exchange is equally worrying. From a corporate point of view, 15.8% of the shares of this body are held by the following three companies: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, State Street Bank & Trust Company and The Capital Group Companies, Inc (each holding just over 5% of the shares). The situation becomes even more worrying if share ownership is broken down by country: the US holds 35.90% in the form of companies and individuals, the UK 9.40%, France 6.20%, Canada 3.00% and Sweden 2.60%. Together these countries account for 57.1% of the shares of the Moscow Stock Exchange against 39.7% for Russia (including the state’s share).43)

Accessing information on the ownership structure of companies is not easy. There are companies that provide insufficient information and others that do not. However, these examples show an ownership structure of Russian companies penetrated by foreign capital.

Contrary to CPG claims, Russia is not a plunderer, but a plundered country that tries to limit the subjugation of its companies, production capacities and control over supply chains precisely by a state that assumes responsibility for the economy. 

We believe that the Russian state would do well to take over on a larger scale both the enterprises in the hands of large domestic private capital and foreign capital, at least in areas of strategic interest to the country. The Russian state in its present form does not yet seem to us insufficiently strong to confront NATO as a whole in a very possible future direct confrontation.

Unfortunately, the interests of the big capital often, but not always, conflict with national interest44). The current Russian government, while defending Russia’s national interests, also defends the private interests of the big capital at home. National interests often clash with the interests of the national, and especially foreign, big capital. This prevents the Russian state from changing its character from a state that serves to defend the private ownership of the means of production (and distribution) to a state with big economic responsibility and a centrally planned system to govern the national economy. But it is precisely the political forces that demand this that communists outside Russia should support, among them the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

A formulation that more accurately describes the reality of the exploitation of Russian enterprises is that imperialist capital, through Russian enterprises, exploits the national workers, in unison with Russian big capital. This fact that big national capital joins forces with imperialist capital to exploit the working class is a common feature of all non-imperialist countries. In this context, the importance of the Russian state is crucial, as it further limits national economic dependence on imperialism.

It is possible to point out then that Russia has a relatively strong state which enables it to counteract economic penetration as well as NATO’s military aggression against it. It is also true that Russian enterprises, including those of strategic interest to the country, are affected by the penetration of imperialist capital.

We strongly defend the role of the Russian state in defending national interests and its attempts to advance the strengthening of national industry. We also recognize that Russia’s current role against NATO and fascism in Europe is congruent with the struggle of the peoples of the world for national sovereignty and against imperialism. A weakening of Russia would be detrimental to the peoples of the world who want to achieve their national sovereignty.

That is why we are very concerned about the penetration of imperialist capital into the Russian economy. We want to see a strengthening of the Russian state, a greater planning role for it and greater interference in national production. In our opinion, the strengthening of the Russian state must necessarily come at the expense of the big oligarchic groups in the country, in whom we see the main problem for Russia and for the rest of the world fighting for freedom. The interests of the owners of big capital are in conflict with the interests of the great majorities of the country. And in the face of the growing danger of a direct NATO confrontation with Russia, we hope that the Russian government will have the wisdom to lower the living standards of the Russian oligarchs in favor of national industry, in favor of the technological development of the country, in favor of the Russian army, in favor of health, housing and education.

The ability to critically analyze reality, i.e. to recognize contradictions, to understand that every part of reality is contradictory in itself, as is also the case in Russia, and to extract a synthesis from this critical analysis, is absent in the CPG. It recognizes the “bad” or the “good”, but is unable to grasp both aspects at the same time and to extract a synthesis from them. Despite the negative aspects of Russia, the synthesis says that Russia’s role in the struggle for the emancipation of the peoples of the world from imperialism is relevant and positive. Its failure to recognize this is the basis of the damage the CPG is doing to the international communist movement at present.

In the following parts we will look at issues such as: the export of capital from Russia abroad, Russia’s productive and commercial structure, Russian banking and Russia’s military presence in the world. 

Notes

1)   Guerrero, Patricio, “Campo de estudio de la ciencia económica: algunos aspectos básicos” (in english: “Field of study of economic science: some basics”), (photocopy), 1999, p. 4. 

A book version is available at: https://books.google.de/books/about/Campo_y_m%C3%A9todo_de_estudio_de_la_ciencia.html?id=bcaBzgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

2)   In the original in German: “die Dinge und ihre begrifflichen Abbilder wesentlich in ihrem Zusammenhang, ihrer Verkettung, ihrer Bewegung, ihrem Entstehn und Vergehn” auffast.

Engels, Frederick, “Herrn Eugen Dühring’s Umwälzung der Wissenschaft” (in english: “Herr Eugen Dühring’s Revolution in Science”), in: Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels — Werke, Berlin, DDR: Dietz Verlag, Band 20, 1962, p. 22. 

A digital version of the work in English is available from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/index.htm

3)   Politzer, Georges, “Principios elementales y fundamentales de Filosofía” (in english: “Elementary and Fundamental Principles of Philosophy”), Argentina, Colección Eneida, 1971, p. 115. 

A book version is available at: https://www.casadellibro.com/libro-principios-elementales-y-fundamentales-de-filosofia/9788446022107/975911

4)   Guerrero, op. cit.

5)   Communist Party of Greece (CPG), “On the ideological-political confrontation at the 22nd International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties and the “trick” about the “anti-Russian” and “pro-Russian” sentiment”, in: https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/On-the-ideologicalpolitical-confrontation-at-the-22nd-International-Meeting-of-Communist-and-Workers-Parties-and-the-trick-about-the-anti-Russian-and-pro-Russian-sentiment/

6)   Communist Party of Greece (CPG), “On the so-called World Anti-Imperialist Platform and its damaging and disorienting position”, in: https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/On-the-so-called-World-Anti-Imperialist-Platform-and-its-damaging-and-disorienting-position/ 

7)   Communist Party of Greece (CPG), op. cit.: “On the so-called World Anti-Imperialist Platform…”

8)   Partido Comunista de Grecia (PCG), op. cit.: “On the so-called World Anti-Imperialist Platform…”

9)   G20, “About G20”, last updated on 30.06.2023, in: https://www.g20.org/en/about-g20/ 

10)   World Anti-Imperialist Platform (WAP), “The rising tide of global war and the tasks of anti-imperialists (Full text)”, in: https://wap21.org/?p=566

11)   We would also like to point out a fact. From the statement: “The PAM claims that ‘There would be no economic data to justify calling China or Russia imperialist.’ […] It is as if China and Russia did not participate in the G20 summits, the meetings of the 20 most powerful capitalist states in the world”, it follows that the member states of the G20 are without exception imperialist countries. This idea contrasts with the idea of the “imperialist pyramid”, according to which almost all or perhaps all countries recognised by the UN would be imperialist. Either all countries in the world are imperialist because they have more or less developed trade relations, or only the G20 countries are imperialist.

12)   Wikipedia, “Creación y  evolución del G7”, in: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7

13)   Partido Comunista de Grecia (PCG), op. cit.: “On the so-called World Anti-Imperialist Platform…”

14)   Gazprom, “Grwoth at Scale, Gazprom Annual Report 2020”, in: https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReports/PDF/LSE_OGZD_2020.pdf, p. 31, in the section “Share Capital”.

15)   Rosneft, “Shareholder structure”, 1 July 2021, in: https://www.rosneft.com/Investors/Equity/Shareholder_structure/

Fin-plan, “Компании с государственным участием на российском фондовом рынке” (in english “Empresas con participación estatal en la bolsa rusas”), 11 July 2022, in: https://fin-plan.org/blog/investitsii/kompanii-s-gosudarstvennym-uchastiem-na-rossiyskom-fondovom-rynke/?ysclid=ll6d6lqh77551810745

16)   Smart-Lab, “структура и состав акционеров Сбербанк” (in english “Companies with state participation at the”), 8 May 2020, in: https://smart-lab.ru/q/SBER/shareholders/ 

Fin-plan, op. cit. “Компании с государственным участием на…” (in the footnote 63)

17)   Aeroflot, “Shareholder Capital Structure”, last seen on 7 August 2023, in: https://ir.aeroflot.com/ensecurities/shareholder-capital-structure/

18)   Smart-Lab, op. cit. “структура и состав …” .

Fin-plan, op. cit. “Компании с государственным участием на…” (in the footnote 63)

Rotec, “History”, last seen on 14.08.2023, in: https://rostec.ru/en/about/history/ 

19)   Gazprombank, “Компании с государственным участием на Московской бирже” (in english: “Companies with state participation on the Moscow Exchange”), 17 February 2023, in: https://gazprombank.investments/blog/reviews/state-participation-companies/?ysclid=ll6d6fo92l147691067 

20)   The CPG is not distinguished by a high level of rigour. In its list of Russian ‘giant monopolies’ (Gazprom, Rosneft, Lukoil, Rosatom, Sberbank, Norilsk Nickel, Rosvooruzhenie, Rostec, Rusal, etc.) it lists the name of the company ‘Rosvooruzhenie’, which no longer exists because it merged with ‘Promexport’ and together they became ‘Rosoboronexport’.

21)   “On 10 January 2017, in accordance with the resolution of 26 December 2016 of the sole shareholder, Rostec State Corporation, Alexander Mikheev assumed the position of General Director of JSC Rosoboronexport.”

Rosoboronexport, “History of the company”, last seen on 14.08.2023, in: http://roe.ru/eng/rosoboronexport/history/index.php 

22)   Moscos Exchange, “Shareholders owning over 5 per cent of shares”, data updated as of 4 April 2023, in: https://www.moex.com/s1352 

23)   VTB Bank, “VTB Bank Annual Report 2022”, in: https://www.vtb.com/media-files/vtb.com/sitepages/ir/VTB_Annual_report_2022_ENG.pdf

24)   Energy Intelligence, “Gazprom Restructures Minority Ownership in Novatek”, in: https://www.energyintel.com/0000017b-a7da-de4c-a17b-e7dac5550000

25)   Fin-plan, op. cit. “Компании с государственным участием на…” (in the footnote 63)

26)   Apparently, there is a case of privatisation: the case of Gazprombank. As North Stream II failed to get off the ground, it seems that Gazprom was forced to sell its voting shares in Gazprombank to private individuals. It does not seem to be clear who the new owners of these shares are. At the time of writing, we have not been able to find more precise information.

Warsaw Institute, “Gazprombank CEO: Gazprom’s Shares Acquired by Russian Entities”, in: https://warsawinstitute.org/gazprombank-ceo-gazproms-shares-acquired-russian-entities/ 

27)   Rosimushchestvo, “Учет и мониторинг федерального имущества. Состав и структура пакетов акций (долей), находящихся в федеральной собственности по состоянию на 26.11.2021” (in english “Accounting and monitoring of federal property. Composition and structure of blocks of shares (stakes) in federal ownership as of 26.11.2021”, from 03.06.2022, in: https://rosim.gov.ru/Attachment.aspx?Id=202132 

28)   Fin-plan, op. cit. “Компании с государственным участием на…”

29)   The arguments that are usually put forward to refute the importance of state involvement in the Russian economy are similar to the following: “state capitalism is not socialism”, “if the state is capitalist, it makes no difference whether the enterprises are state or private, the exploitation of the working class is one and the same”, “the Russian state bureaucrats exploit the Russian working class and the working class of other countries”.

30)   MercadoLibre, “Así secuestró Putin la propiedad privada en Rusia” (in english: “How Putin hijacked private property in Russia”), published on 14/4/2022 – 10:11 hrs., in: https://www.libremercado.com/2022-04-14/putin-propiedad-privada-rusia-6885221/

31)   It is debatable whether or not the Russian economy can be described as state capitalism. But it is not the purpose of this paper to enter into this debate.

32)   Fundscene, “Lawrow – Russland hat alle Illusionen über den Westen verloren” (in english “Lavrov – Russia has lost all illusions about the West”), 18 March, 2014, in: https://fundscene.com/lawrow-russland-hat-alle-illusionen-uber-den-westen-verloren/

33)   Swissinfo.ch, “Lavrov anuncia que Rusia reorientará política económica y exterior hacia Asia” (in english: “Lavrov announces Russia’s reorientation of economic and foreign policy towards Asia”), published on 07 December 2022 at 11:47 hrs., in: https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/ucrania-guerra_lavrov-anuncia-que-rusia-reorientar%C3%A1-pol%C3%ADtica-econ%C3%B3mica-y-exterior-hacia-asia/48115656

34)   The usual arguments to dismiss Russia’s new orientation towards the East and South include: “the Russians do not fight fascism and imperialism on principle”, “they say they fight fascism in Ukraine, but in reality they only want to spread their imperialist wings over new markets (in Ukraine)”, “how naive those who think they see something good in the Russians”, and so on a list of arguments based on moral values and not on objective facts.

35)   Our party, a few days after the Russian special military operation began, published a statement of support entitled “Declaration of the Communist Party of Chile (Proletarian Action) in the face of the latest events in the Ukraine” which reads for example: 

“We see Russia’s military incursion as a decisive response to the ongoing violations and breaches of international agreements signed by Russia and the ‘West’.”

Communist Party of Chile (Acción Proletaria), “Declaración del Partido Comunista Chileno (Acción Proletaria) ante los últimos sucesos en Ucrania” (in english: “Statement of the Communist Party of Chile (Acción Proletaria) on the latest events in Ukraine”), written on 27.04.2022 and published a few days later, in: https://accionproletaria.com/declaracion-del-partido-comunista-chileno-accion-proletaria-ante-los-ultimos-sucesos-en-ucrania/

36)   Our party quickly issued a statement on this important development in Niger. The statement reads:

“Russia’s struggle in Ukraine against NATO and fascism opens a space of struggle for all peoples who want to free themselves from the imperialist yoke. The new world must have a sovereign and industrialised Africa!”

Communist Party of Chile (Acción Proletaria), “Los Comunistas, el Partido Comunista Chileno (Acción Proletaria), saludan el despertar de África” (in english: 

“The Communists, the Communist Party of Chile (Acción Proletaria), salute the awakening of Africa”), 7 de agosto 20237 August 2023, in: https://accionproletaria.com/los-comunistas-el-partido-comunista-chileno-accion-proletaria-saludan-el-despertar-de-africa/

37)   Berliner Zeitung. “Putin rächt sich am Westen: Konzerne werden verstaatlicht — bevor sie ihr Russland-Geschäft verkaufen” (in english “Putin takes revenge on the West: corporations are nationalised — before they sell their Russia business”), 17 of July 2023, in: https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/wirtschaft-verantwortung/sanktionen-wladimir-putin-raecht-sich-am-westen-danone-und-carlsberg-werden-von-russland-verstaatlicht-li.370088

38)   Since sanctions against Russia came into force, it has become more difficult to obtain data, at least from some parts of the globe. For several Russian companies, links to annual reports are inaccessible. We do not know why. To obtain the relevant data, we have had to find ingenious ways to get around the obstacles as much as possible.

39)   Gazprom, op. cit. “Grwoth at Scale, Gazprom Annual…”, p. 31, in the section “Share Capital”.

40)   Rosneft, op. cit. “Shareholder structure”

Fin-plan, op. cit. “Компании с государственным участием на российско…”

41)   Smart-Lab, “структура и состав акционеров Сбербанк” (in: “Estructura y composición del accionariado de Sberbank”), 8 de mayo de 2020, in: https://smart-lab.ru/q/SBER/shareholders/

42)   Energy Intelligence, op. cit. “Gazprom Restructures Minority…”

43)   Moscos Exchange, “Shareholders owning over 5 percent of shares”, data updated as of 4 April 2023, in: https://www.moex.com/s1352 

44)   National interests are those that transcend social classes and are shared by the majority of the population, such as strong production, national sovereignty, territorial integrity, food and energy security.

The post The political stance of the Communist Party of Greece a communist stance? appeared first on They Shall Not Pass.

Dear comrades!

I cordially welcome the participants in the 22nd International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties on behalf of the Communist Party of Ukraine. The party which has been illegally banned in my country where our comrades and like-thinking people suffer political persecution, arrests and physical violence on the part of the ruling Neo-Nazi-oligarchic regime, a regime which is, in essence, reactionary and Fascist.

We have gathered here on the Island of Freedom at a difficult time. The forces of international imperialism, the sharks of globalization in their struggle for redrawing the political map of the world, for resources and commodity markets resort to any methods and in fact act as instigators of the Third World War. The tragedy is that the reactionary forces make active use of Neo-Nazism and Neo-Fascism to achieve their goals.

Analysis of the international situation shows growing aggressiveness of imperialism and a dramatic sharpening of its internal contradictions in two areas:

• the ideological – between the US-led imperialist West and Communist China which, in the wake of the collapse of the USSR, they consider to be “an empire of evil,” as well as Vietnam and Cuba;
• and the inter-imperialist –The USA seeks to preserve its hegemony and the world order under which it plays the dominant role.

The USA is creating new miliary blocs in Southeast Asia, stoking up tensions in the Middle East and North Africa, and is pursuing an aggressive policy in using Ukraine against Russia, and Taiwan against China. The provocative visit of Pelosi to Yerevan and her pledges of support for Armenia inevitably lead to a widening of the conflict in the Caucasus between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The situation in Central Asia gives grounds for concern (recent conflict between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan).

After the breakup of the USSR it was the USA and Britain that set about creating a neo-Fascist state on the territory of the former Soviet Ukraine and became the main sponsors and beneficiaries of it.

The reforms they were foisting on Ukraine put capital in control of all the spheres of society’s life and ensured total control of transnational corporations over the country’s socio-economic life and as a result created the material basis for the advent and establishment, as a result of an armed coup in February 2014, of the power of the most reactionary forces: the comprador bourgeoisie allied with neo-Fascists and organized crime. 

It was these forces in Ukraine that were instrumental in destroying all the socialist gains, economic sovereignty and bringing about a profound lumpenization of society.

It is through these forces that the USA formed a puppet vertical power structure and introduced external control of the country.

It was through these forces that the USA unleashed in Ukraine a fratricidal civil war, a war against the citizens of Donbass who are upholding their constitutional rights and freedoms. It was these forces which, at the instigation of the US ruling circles, brought about a development of the civil war in Donbass into a war against Russia.

Humankind has in fact already been dragged into a new world war. I would like to draw one of the many tragic parallels.

During the Second World War Europe was working for Hitler in the war against the USSR. Today, acting in the interests of the USA, Europe is supplying weapons to the pro-Fascist regime in Ukraine and is strengthening it financially.

The continuation of this policy will inevitably lead to the spread of the theatre of hostilities to the territory of the EU.

The aggressive attempts of some new European countries, notably Poland, Hungary, Romania and the Baltic states, to revise the post- World War II borders will merely speed up this process.

The former Foreign Minister of Romania, Marga, recently said without mincing words: “Ukraine is within unnatural borders. It should cede territories: Transcarpathia to Hungary, Galicia to Poland, Bukovina to Romania. These are the territories of other countries.”

US senator Lindsey Graham said cynically that with American weapons Ukraine will fight Russia to the last man.

Civilians, innocent people—old folks, women and children — are dying in Ukraine. This is a tragedy.

In backing the fascist regime in Ukraine, the USA and NATO are pursuing a policy which former US senator Richard Blake outlined like this: “we don’t care how many Ukrainians die. How many women, children, civilians and military die. We don’t care. It is like a football match and we want to win. Ukraine cannot accept a peace solution. It is up to Washington to take the peace decision, but in the meantime we want to continue this war, we will fight to the last Ukrainian.”

Such statements by war hawks vindicate our position and the warnings the Ukrainian communists voiced in Izmir last week: the threat of a Fascist offensive is real, the war which the USA and NATO are waging with Ukrainian hands on Ukrainian territory is a war solely in the interests of the USA imperialists.

Billions of dollars are funneled into the production of lethal weapons and ammunition, Britain’s new-baked Prime Minister Liz Truss is prepared to use nuclear weapons, huge numbers of NATO troops are concentrated on the borders of Ukraine and Belarus.

The imperialists turn a blind eye to the fact that Zelensky’s pro-Fascist regime is ruthlessly doing away with political opponents. Any manifestations of free thinking are quashed by punitive units. The crimes of Hitlerites and their accomplices during the Second World War who burned people alive in Oswiecim and who staged Gernica and Khatyn massacres are being glorified.

The monuments and graves of Soviet soldiers who gave their lives to have the flames in the furnaces of Nazi death camps doused are being destroyed.

This happens not only in Ukraine but all over Europe. The Moloch of glorification of Nazi criminals devours minds turning homo sapiens (“the wise man”) into a “mad man.”

The process of recreating a semblance of the Nazi Third Reich is practically underway.

This “Reich,” like its prototype nurtured by transnational capital, American and British corporations, bases its ideology on the superiority of the “indigenous” race. Hence the law on indigenous peoples which has turned into outcasts the Russians who have always lived on Ukrainian territory, including Donbass, Kharkov, Odessa, Nikolayev, Kherson, indeed the whole territory of our country. Like Jews in Nazi Germany. We know from history what tragedy it visited on millions of people.

Comrades!

In view of what is happening in Ukraine, I would like first of all to note that unfortunately, there is no consensus between Communist and workers’ parties on the nature of the armed conflict in Ukraine, as well as on the position of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which has supported the special operation.

Since any military confrontation has its own specific features, the very first task of any Marxist is to identify its class-oriented nature with appropriate assessment. 

As we believe, the war of Donbass against the Kiev regime should be considered as national liberation struggle, in essence, a war for independence from the ruling fascist regime, for the right of the people to speak their native Russian language and not to follow the anti-Russian course imposed by the United States.  

Hence, on the basis of Marxist theory, the military conflict in Ukraine should not be considered as an imperialist war in a literal sense of the word, and moreover in view of Russia, it is considered as the struggle against an external threat to national security and fascism.

We all understand that people’s militia of Donbass was not able to resist the Ukrainian army of many thousands equipped with foreign weaponry, so their defeat would have inevitably lead to the total destruction of the Russian-speaking population, many of whom were citizens of Russia.

The army of thousands of Ukrainian nationalists under the command of American and NATO instructors concentrated on the borders of the republics, the detailed invasion plan had been developed by Washington generals in advance. They all were waiting for the command.

Accordingly, in order to protect its citizens and ensure national security, Russia had no other choice but to deliver a preventive strike.  

In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the President has taken the actions stipulated by the Law, since it was impossible to resist aggression in any other way.

In addition, the negotiation process within the framework of the Minsk agreements has been deliberately sabotaged by Kiev with the support of the United States and the European Union, since the establishment of peace in Ukraine is not stipulated by the plans of Washington and NATO.

In this regard, the position of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation seems to us quite reasonable.

The increasingly reactionary character of modern imperialism is the result of several factors that have brought about a decline of the workers’ movement and the weakening of the communist and workers’ parties.

Ukrainian communists believe that in working out the tactics of our actions and defining the main areas of struggle it is necessary to proceed on the basis that the modern balance of forces in the world has tilted in favour of reaction which is making use of Fascism.

Sowing discord within the working classes, using puppet regimes, Neo-Fascists and Neo-Nazis, imperialism intensifies the exploitation of countries and peoples and destroys the foundations of people’s democracy and a just world order.

Modern world trends and constant economic crises, unfortunately, diminish the revolutionary potential of the principles of proletarian internationalism and undermine the unity of the working classes. This is happening also in Ukraine where a special “working” class of war is being created, the class which lives off the war and cannot imagine itself without it.

The sanctions policy initiated by the USA and Britain and their political satellites inevitably worsens the life of common people, weakens the states’ economic potential, provokes unemployment and consequently increases social discontent and, unfortunately, disunites the workers’ movement. World imperialism uses all these phenomena as a weapon in the class struggle.

What do we see today in Europe and indeed in the USA? Prices and tariffs have grown many times over. Enterprises are shutting down, people publicly burn their bills for gas, electricity and water, stage protest actions against their governments demanding, among other things, an end to the sanctions madness and the war in Ukraine. All this is happening against the background of militarization of the economy, politics and the media hysteria around the nuclear war.

I am convinced that the communist and workers’ parties must channel people’s economic and social demands towards political struggle. The struggle against the threat of Fascism and a change of the social system that engenders it, that is, the capitalist system as such.

Today the progressive forces – we have to admit it honestly – are losing the cognitive battle for the minds of people. It is our task to win it. This is the only way if we want to prevent the catastrophe of a Third World War.

In this connection I believe that in the context of the goals and tasks of our meeting and considering the situation in the world and the need to struggle for an end to the war and the establishment of a just world order we –the communist and workers’ parties – should concentrate our efforts on the following areas:

• the strengthening of our solidarity, solidarity with other progressive forces in the struggle against Neo-Fascism and the instigators of a Third World War;
• organising a system of truthful public information about what is taking place in Ukraine today, how it threatens Europe and how it threatens humankind;
• explaining to people that the civil war in Donbass (2014-2022), like the Ukraine-Russia war, have been provoked and unleashed by the pro-Fascist regimes in Ukraine on the demand and in the interests of the USA in order to create a bridgehead for the dismemberment and destruction of Russia as a geopolitical rival;
• stepping up the struggle against any attempts to glorify the Nazi ideology, restoring the true history of the Second World War;
• supporting (without going back on our ideological principles) those who come out for a peaceful settlement and an end to the war in Ukraine regardless of their political affiliation. Such politicians and such forces exist in every country.

I also consider it necessary to bend every effort at the level of national parliaments and the European parliament to neutralise the provocative actions of the USA and its allies in the Asia Pacific Region against China. Combined with the war in Ukraine and the possible direct clash of nuclear powers, China and the USA, especially against the background of declarations about a Russian “nuclear threat” the worst forecasts may, unfortunately, become a reality.

Dear comrades!

The struggle to put an end to the fratricidal war in Ukraine unleashed by the transnational corporations and their stooges in the governments of European and not only European states, the war in which Washington-led NATO is a de facto side to the conflict (supply of arms, ammunition and training of Ukrainian armed forces, funding and controlling the  military campaign) is the struggle for preventing a Third World War which is but a step away. We must do everything to prevent it.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address the participants in this international meeting and to express confidence of our victory, a victory of “light” over “darkness”.

The post SPEECH BY THE FIRST SECRETARY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF UKRAINE PYOTR SIMONENKO appeared first on They Shall Not Pass.

Today, November 9, 2023, after a plenary meeting of all the members of the Initiative of the Communist and Workers’ Parties (founded in 2013 and of which the PRCF is one of the founding members) and after about two hours of debate where, yet, no majority was emerging to go in this direction, a closing speech by Comrade Giorgos Marinos unilaterally decreed the dissolution of the Initiative. It was added that it would now be prohibited to use the call or the logo of the Initiative. The decision was not put to a vote.

Since the meeting took place on «zoom», it was technically impossible for many parties wishing to protest against this overt anti-democratic act to protest. Our comrade Boris Differ even asked in writing on the thread «Why would there not be a vote on this?». The only response was that there would be no second round. Then the written thread was disabled.

Whatever the possible divergences at the international level, and in particular the appreciation of the NATO-Russia conflict in Ukraine, we consider it unjustifiable to dissolve the international tools of struggle forged in the struggle and the trust gained over the years.

We suggest to the parties members of the Initiative who are surprised by this brutal dissolution to contact us to reflect together on the best way to continue the international fight consubstantial to the communist activity on the basis of the maxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, and without opposing communist internationalism and the broad development of the anti-imperialist Front.

For the PRCF and the International Commission of the PRCF Fadi Kassem, Georges Gastaud, Gilliatt de Staerck, Rachida El Fekair, Boris Differ, Aymeric Monville

The post We reject the unilateral dissolution of the Initiative of the Communist and Workers’ Parties. Call for reconstruction! – Statement of PRCF appeared first on They Shall Not Pass.

In addition to aiding the US government’s murderous war on Venezuela, they absurdly demonize China as “capitalist” and claim it is allied with imperialism (while they are the ones objectively siding with imperialism!).

They ridiculously claim that the NATO proxy war in Ukraine is “inter-imperialist”, and some of their leaders go so far as to support Ukraine, claiming its far-right US client regime is defending “self-determination” (while it tragically sacrifices Ukrainians as cannon fodder to defend imperialism).

Some of these same “orthodox” “communist” parties also backed the violent right-wing US-sponsored coup attempt against Nicaragua’s democratically elected Sandinista government in 2018.

They also took an ultra-leftist position in Mexico, claiming progressive nationalist President AMLO is just another bourgeois politician, essential siding with the right-wing, oligarch-run opposition against him.

Many praised the US-backed violent riots in Iran as well. These parties are in profound crisis. They are also mostly small, and are hemorrhaging the support they do have, largely because it’s increasingly obvious how they have become useful to imperialism.

They really must reconsider many of their positions and forge a new path — one in alliance with the majority of anti-imperialist socialist movements in the Global South, which have long been and are the leaders of the international left.

The post Ben Norton on the Communist Party of Greece appeared first on They Shall Not Pass.

English / Russian / Spanish / Chinese

English

Respected Comrade Kim Jong Un Has Talks with Russian President

Kim Jong Un, general secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea and president of the State Affairs of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, had talks with Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, president of the Russian Federation, on September 13.

Comrade Kim Jong Un and Comrade Putin had a significant photo taken with the national flags of the two countries in the background before the talks.

There took place talks between the two top leaders.

Present at the talks from the DPRK side were Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui, Korean People’s Army Marshal Pak Jong Chon, Minister of National Defence Kang Sun Nam, Secretaries of WPK Central Committee O Su Yong and Pak Thae Song and Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs Im Chon Il.

Present from the Russian side were Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Deputy Prime Minister and concurrently Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Mantrov, Minister of Defence Sergei Shoigu, Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk, Deputy Prime Minister and concurrently Presidential Envoy to the Far East Federal Region Yuri Trutnev, Deputy Prime Minister Marat Khusnullin, Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration and Press Secretary for the President Dmitri Peskov, Minister of Natural Resources and Ecology and concurrently Chairman of the Russian side to the DPRK-Russia Inter-Governmental Committee for Cooperation in Trade, Economy, Science and Technology Alexandr Kozlov, Minister of Transport Vitaly Saveliev and other senior officials and officials concerned, and Russian Ambassador to the DPRK Alexandr Matsegora.

On the occasion, Putin warmly welcomed Kim Jong Un for visiting Russia again at a meaningful year marking the 75th founding anniversary of the DPRK and the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and the DPRK, expressing his pleasure of meeting Kim Jong Un at the Vostochny Spaceport.

Expressing once again thanks to Putin for inviting the DPRK delegation at an important time and according it cordial hospitality from the beginning of its visit, Kim Jong Un said he was pleased to have a more detailed and deeper understanding of the reality and future of Russia, a space power, at the Vostochny Spaceport to which Putin is paying deep attention.

It is the consistent stand of the DPRK government to attach utmost importance to the DPRK-Russia relations and invariably develop the tradition of deep-rooted friendship, he said, expressing belief that the visit would mark a significant occasion in raising the cooperative relations between the two countries to a new higher level.

The top leaders discussed the issues of further consolidating the friendship and solidarity and cooperative relations and boosting mutual trust by deepening the many-sided exchange and cooperation in various fields including high-level visits between the two countries.

At the talks there was wide-ranging and in-depth exchange of views on important issues of mutual concern. And they agreed to make joint efforts to promote the well-being of the peoples of the two countries and steadily expand the comprehensive and constructive bilateral relations.

There took place a tete-a-tete between Kim Jong Un and Putin after the extended talks.

Kim Jong Un highly appreciated that the relations between the two countries are developing on good terms in conformity with the aspirations and desire of the two peoples on the principle of friendship, good-neighborliness and mutual respect.

The top leaders of the DPRK and Russia exchanged in-depth views on the remarkable successes and experience of constructive cooperation gained in all fields of politics, economy, military and culture for attaining the strategic goals of building a powerful state, and the future development orientation for national prosperity and well-being of the peoples of the two countries.

They discussed with open mind the important issues and the immediate cooperation matters arising in defending the sovereignty and development and interests of the two countries, peace and security in the region and the world and international justice by further strengthening strategic and tactical cooperation between the two countries and extending strong support to and solidarity with each other on the common front to frustrate the imperialists’ military threat and provocation, high-handed and arbitrary practices to plunder independence, progress and peaceful life of humankind, and reached a satisfactory agreement and consensus of views.

The talks proceeded in a comradely and constructive atmosphere.

Respected Comrade Kim Jong Un Has Historic Meetingwith President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putinat Vostochny Spaceport

Kim Jong Un, general secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea and president of the State Affairs of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, had a historic meeting with Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, president of the Russian Federation, at the Vostochny Spaceport in Amur Oblast of the Far Eastern Region on September 13.

The traditional relations of friendship between the DPRK and the Russian Federation, consolidated in trials of history generation after generation and century after century, are further developing into the invincible comrade-in-arms relations and the ever-lasting strategic relations amid the deep friendship and special fellowship between Comrades Kim Jong Un and Putin.

The Vostochny Spaceport was in a warm welcoming atmosphere to greet Kim Jong Un paying an official goodwill visit to the Russian Federation for the new development of the DPRK-Russia friendly and cooperative relations with proudly excellent history and tradition.

The private train of Kim Jong Un arrived at the Vostochny Spaceport at 13:00 local time.

When he got off the train, the guard of honor of the three services of the armed forces of the Russian Federation courteously received him with deepest respect.

He exchanged greetings with Alexandr Kozlov, minister of Natural Resources and Ecology, and other Russian leading officials and headed for the venue of the meeting with President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

He was accompanied by Choe Son Hui, foreign minister of the DPRK, Marshals of the Korean People’s Army Ri Pyong Chol and Pak Jong Chon, Kang Sun Nam, minister of National Defence of the DPRK, O Su Yong and Pak Thae Song, secretaries of the C.C., WPK, and other senior party, government and military officials and suite members.

The national flags of the DPRK and the Russian Federation were fluttering before the carrier rocket assembly and test complex where the top leaders of the DPRK and Russia would meet.

When Kim Jong Un, general secretary of the WPK and president of the State Affairs of the DPRK arrived, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, president of the Russian Federation, warmly greeted him.

He gladly met and exchanged friendly greetings with President Putin.

President Putin warmly welcomed him visiting the Russian Federation again at a significant and crucial time for the development of the Russia-DPRK relations.

Expressing thanks to President Putin for warmly inviting and receiving him despite his busy schedule for leading the overall state affairs, Kim Jong Un said that he was pleased with the meeting being held in a very exceptional and special environment.

He, together with President Putin, visited the Vostochny Spaceport.

He was guided by Yuri Borisov, general manager of the Russian state-run corporation Roscosmos, and Nikolai Nestechuk, director general of the Center for the Operation of Ground-based Space Infrastructure.

The Vostochny Spaceport is a comprehensive space launching base of Russia that has contributed to the remarkable growth of space development by successfully ensuring the launches of space capsules and satellites for different applications, playing an important role in promoting the socio-economic development of Amur Oblast and the Far Eastern Region.

Visiting the carrier rocket assembly and test complex, together with President Putin, Kim Jong Un was briefed on the detailed technical features of Soyuz-2, Angara and other type carrier rockets and their assembling and launching processes.

He also looked round the Soyuz-2 carrier rocket launching complex and the Angara carrier rocket launching complex under construction, being told about the state of their operation and construction, successes and experience gained by Russia in the field of space industry and the prospects for future development.

Highly appreciating the fact that the Vostochny Spaceport, successfully built under the strategic space development plan of President Putin, has achieved invaluable successes, he sincerely hoped that the noble spirit and traditions of strong Russia which explored the path to space would be successfully carried forward.

He expressed deep thanks to President Putin for personally organizing the visit to the important spaceport with sincerity and accompanying him during the visit.

Putin showed his private car to Kim Jong Un before having a warm talk.

Kim Jong Un left his autograph in the visitor’s book – “The glory of Russia that produced the first conquerors of space will be immortal. Kim Jong Un 2023. 9. 13”

The post New Milestone for Development of DPRK-Russia Relations appeared first on They Shall Not Pass.