International Communist Review

The fightback
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 7592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island

International Communist Review

Post by blindpig » Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:33 pm

Editorial of the "International Communist Review"
7/1/14 12:58 PM

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions”.

(K. Marx – F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party)

The publication of the first issue of the “International Communist Review” expresses the necessity of cooperation among theoretical and political journals of Communist Parties that have common positions on a series of fundamental theoretical and ideological issues. This necessity has matured through the assessment of the period of retreat of the international communist movement, following the victory of the counterrevolution in the USSR and the East and Central European countries, as well as through the issues set before the communist movement by the development of modern class struggle.

The steps taken in the past period towards the cooperation and coordination of the Communist and Workers’ Parties were important and necessary. We believe that they consist substantial achievements, which we support and will support. A certain level of discussion, exchange of information and coordination, of common positions and action on several issues has been achieved.

However, we still need to achieve a basic goal, that is, the ideological-political unity of the communist movement on the basis of Marxism Leninism, the defence of the achievements for the world working class of the first attempt in history to build socialism, as well as of the common view on the character of the overthrows and their causes, which is a precondition for overcoming the deep crisis of the communist movement, in order to revive its strategic goal - socialism.

This is why we assess that parallel to the continuation of the cooperation and coordination of Communist and Workers’ Parties, such as their yearly international meeting, it is necessary to enforce the cooperation among the theoretical Marxist Leninist journals on a theoretical level. We do not forget that the main condition for the formation of a revolutionary party is the mastery of the revolutionary theory, which was the focus of the III Leninist Communist International, whose 90th anniversary we celebrate this year. Already from the first issue of its theoretical journal “The communist international” Comintern outlined its organisational principles and its theoretical positions.

The “International Communist Review” continuing the traditions of Lenin is a publication with a clear ideological-political character. It is a journal with a point of view and does not merely record theses of the Communist Parties, besides, the latter process is served by other corresponding publications, such as the Information Bulletin of the international meetings of Communist and Workers’ parties, as well as other parties’ publications. Our goal is to contribute to the popularisation and development of the Marxist Leninist theory through the ideological analysis and political positioning on modern developments in capitalism and the issues of class struggle. We believe that the enforcement of the Marxist Leninist orientation within the international communist and labour movement is a precondition for its necessary reorganisation.

The theoretical and political journals of the CPs that cooperate for the publication of the “International Communist Review” came together based on our common view on major issues of the international communist movement, the defence of the principles of Marxism-Leninism, of proletarian internationalism, of the necessity of a socialist revolution, of the dictatorship of proletariat and of the construction of a socialist society.

We rally our forces to contribute to the theoretical and ideological reorganisation of the international communist movement on a stable Marxist-Leninist basis, despite our different approaches to tactical and strategic issues.

To expressly highlight the vanguard role of the working class in the revolutionary process, in conditions when a series of forces dispute the Marxist-Leninist criteria of belonging to the working class, consequently, its leading position in the struggle for social progress and in the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism as well.

To defend the Leninist principles on the party, in conditions of rising pressure on the communist parties for incorporation into the capitalist system.

To show the necessity of struggle against the imperialist unions, such as the IMF, NATO, the EU etc.

To defend the historical experience of the international communist movement, surely, without rejecting the necessary critique and the scientific conclusions that will help the modern international communist movement to take a step further. We think it is necessary to follow the path of the revolutionary traditions of the Paris Commune, of the October socialist revolution, of the Communist International and the socialist experience of the USSR and of the other countries.

The theoretical and ideological reorganisation of the international communist movement cannot be fulfilled without firm confrontation against the currents that act within the labour movement such as social-democracy, all types of opportunism within the communist movement itself, revisionism, reformism, nationalism, cosmopolitism of the capital and liberalism.

Thus, we openly expose our position, our view and our critique of the existing retreat and distortion of Marxism to the whole international communist movement and contribute to the initiation of a substantial discussion within its ranks for its theoretical and ideological orientation. We address all the theoretical journals of the CPs that support the above principles and wish to contribute to this effort.

We deemed necessary to devote the 1st issue of the “International Communist Review” to the current world economic crisis of capitalism, which discloses the historic boundaries of the capitalist system and accumulates explosive material that can contribute to revolutionary processes in the following years.

The current crisis confirms the significance of the exclusively theoretical work of K. Marx “The Capital”. It discloses as a key issue (in the key forefront of the theoretical work) its creative understanding, that is the conquest in depth of the laws of development of the capitalist economy, so that we can analyse phenomena that had not been fully developed in the era of Marx, such as the new forms of the circulation of money capital, the new technical means that accelerate the dissemination of information and transactions.

The Marxist-Leninist view and analysis of such phenomena is decisive for drawing conclusions from the political struggle for the working class of each country and internationally, for the strengthening of the ideological and political front against reformist and opportunist proposals concerning the rationalisation of capitalism.

We hope that the following articles, published in this journal, contribute to this direction.

Issue 2

Issue 3

Issue 4

Issue 5

Issue 6
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
Posts: 7592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island

Re: International Communist Review

Post by blindpig » Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:40 pm

Issue 7

The Revision of the Great October on the 20th and 22th Congress of the CPSU
5/10/17 1:57 PM
Hundred years have passed since the Great October Socialist Revolution triumphed on the 7th of November 1917. The Hungarian Workers' Party celebrates the Great October as an outstanding event of the universal history, an event that had a decisive influence on the world, the international workers' movement, and also on Hungary and the fate of the Hungarian workers and toiling masses.

1917 provides a lot of experience and conclusions for the communist and workers' movement. The conclusions of the Great October are still valid, they serve as a guide for any political force which is fighting against capitalism, in order to construct socialism.

On the other hand, the rejection and revision of 1917, the re-evaluation of its importance has always been the tool of anti-communist, revisionist forces. The conclusions of the Great October have been revised by the 20th congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), and the 22th congress of the CPSU validated these key points borned under the influence of revisionism in the party's programme. These decisions had grave consequences for the entire communist and workers' movement, its effects can still be felt.

Historical lessons of the Great October

The Great October was a socialist revolution.
The contradictions of capitalism cannot be resolved within the framework of capitalism, capitalism must be replaced by a socialist society. The path to this is the socialist revolution. The Great October opened the epoch of revolutions.

This great epoch is still not over. There were and there will besuccesses and failures, the times of revolutionary recession and periods of revolutionary upsurgeare followingeach other, but this process ultimately leads to the victory of socialism on a world scale. Now we witness bigger and bigger wealth concentrating in the hands of fewer and fewer people, growing poverty for more and more people, growing population and more and more deteriorating natural environment, increasingly destructive military technologies concentrating in the hands of fewer and fewer, better and better technical opportunities and weakening democracy – those are contradictions, which cannot be resolved by capitalism.

The Great October was the revolution of the working class.
1917 was not a coup d'etat of a small revolutionary group, but it was a social revolution. A historical deed of the working class, the only class interested in the consequent fight against capital. It proved the words of the Communist Manifesto:

„Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.”[1]

The position of the working class has changed a lot in the recent decades. The internationalization of capital and capitalist competition lend impetus to the concentration and centralization of capital and this development leads to changes in the social structure, while the strengthening of the monopolies sharpens the problems, exerts pressure on and destroys a section of the middle strata. Still the working class in the broad sense of the word - the social class which owns no capital and must sell its own labour power - today too is the most conscious force in the fight against the capital.

The communists were those who prepared, organised and carried out the first socialist revolution of the world
The Great October proved that among the various currents in the labour movement only the revolutionary, radical line, the communists assume the responsibility and are able to carry out a socialist revolution, only Marxism-Leninism is a reliable ideological weapon.

In the epoch of socialist revolutions the communist and social democratic currents completely and finally broke up. Communists became the carriers of socialist revolutions, while social democracy irrevocably committed themselves to capitalism .

Working masses cannot win and keep the power without a disciplined, organised, built on the principles of democratic centralism Marxist-Leninist party
Against the will of the masses – no matter how organised a small revolutionary group is – no victorious revolutuon is possible. But no matter how much the people wish for a revolutionary change, it's not possible without an organised and disciplined party.

The prerequisite of the party’s success is the adherence to Marxism-Leninism.
The basis of the communist party’s strength is its ideological purity and the unity of policy and action. While the basis of the party’s ideological purity is the acceptance and creative application of Marxism-Leninism.

Proletarian internationalism and the international unity of the communist parties are important prerequisites of the success of the revolutionary struggle.
Shortly after the victory of the Great October, in the March of 1918 the 3rd Internationale started its work, the 3rd Internationale was so far the biggest institutionalized cooperation in the history of the communist movement.

The importance of proletarian internationalism is not decreasing. Only together communist and workers’ parties can defeat the forces of capitalism.

Socialism should oppose the forces of capitalism with a compelling power. Peaceful co-existence does not mean reconciliation with capitalism but is one of the forms of struggle.
Capital has never forgiven the revolution of 1917. From the first moment it tried to get revenge, to get back its lost positions. We Hungarians rememer well, that in 1919 the Soviet Republic was drown in blood and Miklós Horthy was put into power for more than two decades. In order to eliminate the Soviet Union and communists, the capital unleashed fascism on the world. Without the support and the money of the European big capital there would have never been any Hitler or Mussolini. Capital didn’t care that fascism caused wars and the death of tens of millions. Capital still hasn’t completely lock back the spirit of fascism into the bottle, but takes it out everytime it’s needed. Capital started the cold war (1948-1990) in the name of revenge, and toppled socialist systems in several countries in the 1990’s. In this specific period there was at the same time an opportunist corrosion of the CPs and violations of the laws of socialist construction, which formed conditions for the counterrevolution. A milestone in this course were the decisions of the 20th Congress of the CPSU.

The historical place of the CPSU’s 20th congress

On 14-25 February, 1956 the 20th congress of the CPSU took place. The congress was a turning point in the history of the Soviet and the international communist movement. It revised the most basic lessons of 1917. Its decisions determined the way of thinking and the political practices of the communist movement for a long time. Instead of 1917, the historical reference point became 1956, the 20th congress. The reference point in evaluating the debates within the Soviet party started to be the attitude to the 20th century, not to 1917. This determined the relationships with the different communist parties too.

The CPSU tried to make the postulates of the Soviet political thinking to be accepted as dogmas in the international movement, and had much success with it. This largely held back creative thinking. It strenghtened the position of petty bourgeois-opportunist forces within the leaderships of socialist countries.

This period concided with the changes in the basis of the Western European communist parties, the increasing influence of intelligentsia, the decreasing proportions of actually workers. In Europe eurocommunist parties emerged, which rejected the revolutionary effect of the Great October and the experiences of socialist countries, absolutised the peculiarities of Western European countries, revised the basic principles of Marxism. These views still have a damaging influence on the European communist movement, obstruct the fight of the workers. They reached the point of irrationally and unscientifically arguing that socialism could be constructed through bourgeois parliamentary elections and using the tools of capitalism.

The 20th congress of the CPSU also has played a considerable role in destroying the earlier existing unity of the socialist countries. From the 60’s the relationship between the Soviet Union and China became hostile. The positions of China were utilized by US and European imperialism against the Soviet Union.

The 21th extraordinary congress of the CPSU took place between January 27-February 5 1959. Its task was to strenghten the changes in the CPSU’s leadership and Nikita Khrushchev’s power position and to make the elaboration of the CPSU’s new programme quicker.

The CPSU’s 22nd congress on October 17-31 1961 accepted the new programme of the CPSU, and thus implemented a revision of the conclusions of 1917 on the level of the party programme.

In the last decades the Marxist re-evaluation of the CPSU’s 20th congress has begun in the communist movement.

The Hungarian Workers’ Party declared on the 90th anniversary of the Great October: „Capitalist counter-revolutions would have been impossible or very hard to carry out, if there hadn’t been internal causes in some of the socialist countries. The decisive internal cause should be looked for in the leaderships of the socialist countries, where a reformist-opportunist wing emerged and gradually gave up its socialist positions. This political line was felt already after the CPSU’s 20th congress, when several values of socialist construction were rejected with the pretext of eliminating the mistakes of the Stalin-era. The justified and correct criticism of Stalin was used to reject the positive elements of his heritage, to deprive the socialist countries’ societies of the reliable historical consciousness. Evaluating of Stalin according to today’s circumstances, correcting the distortions is the duty of our time”.[2]

The Greek Communist Party has come to the following conlusion after thorough analysis of Soviet socialism:

“Following World War II and the post-war reconstruction, socialist construction entered a new phase. The Party was faced with new demands and challenges regarding the development of socialism-communism. The 20th Congress of the CPSU (1956) stands out as a turning point, since at that congress a series of opportunist positions were adopted on matters relating to the economy, the strategy of the communist movement and international relations. The correlation of forces in the struggle being waged during the entire preceding period was altered, with a turn in favor of the revisionist-opportunist positions, with the result that the Party gradually began to lose its revolutionary characteristics. In the decade of the 1980s, with perestroika, opportunism fully developed into a traitorous, counter-revolutionary force. The consistent communist forces that reacted during the final phase of the betrayal, at the 28th CPSU Congress, did not manage in a timely manner to expose it and to organize the revolutionary reaction of the working class.”[3]

The revision of the lessons of Great October’s at the CPSU’s 20th congress

Let’s examine closer the most important questions, in which the CPSU’s 20th congress changed the evaluation of the Great October experience!

Peaceful coexistence

Following a certain detente in the middle of the 1950’s and the gradually established military balance between the Soviet Union and the USA the CPSU’s 20th congress thought that the peaceful coexistence of the two systems means a broad cooperation and the aspect of anticapitalist fight can be put aside.

The congress was right to conclude that there was a certain detente.

„Thanks to the consistent peaceful foreign policy of the socialist countries the state of international tension, which was fraught with great danger, has been replaced by a certain détent.”[4]

The congress correctly concluded that the existence of the two world systems is a fact, which determines international relations.

„The emergence of socialism from within the bounds of a single country and its transformation into a world system is the main feature of our era. Capitalism has proved powerless to prevent this process of world-historic significance. The simultaneous existance of two opposite world economic systems, the capitalist and the socialist, developing according to different laws and in opposite directions, has become an indisputablle fact.” [5]

The congress didn’t speak about the fact that this relative detente between the two world systems was mostly a result of the military balance formed due to the developments of the 1950’s, the creation of the Soviet atomic and hydrogen bomb, the great successes in rocket research.

The congress overlooked the internal problems of the socialist countries. We shouldn’t forget that in 1956 counter revolutionary processes take place in Poland and Hungary.

„The socialist system is marching forward triumthantly, without crises or upheavals. It is bringing great benefits to the peoples of the socialist countries, demonstrating its decisive superiority over the capitlist system.” [6]

The programme accepted at the CPSU’s 22th congress in 1961 says:

„The CPSU maintains that forces capable of preserving and promoting universal peace have arisen and are growing in the world. Possibilities are arising for essentially new relations between states.”[7]

„Peaceful coexistence of the socialist and capitalist countries is an objective necessity for the development of human society.”[8]

Lenin was a supporter of the world revolution. For Lenin peaceful coexistence was a temporary compromise: I can’t defeat capitalism now, but I don’t give up the goal. In March 1919 the Communist Internationale was formed, which enjoyed the full support of the Soviet state. In the 1920’s communist parties were created in almost every country of the world. At the period when Stalin was the general secretary of the party the CPSU supported the Comintern. Though in 1943 they made a gesture to the capitalist members of the antifascist coalition and dissolved the Comintern, by then there was already a new, effective force of the world revolution, the triumphantly advancing Red Army.

The CPSU under the leadership of Khrushchev gives up the idea of world revolution, he declares peaceful coexistence as the end goal, stating that relations of capitalism and socialism would be determined by peaceful competition. Brezhnev a bit clumsily, but returns to the idea of world revolution. Of course, this does not negate the fact that in the period when Brezhnev was the GS of the CPSU the problems of utilizing the tools of capitalism in socialist construction continued and sharpened, with the result that the party lost its revolutionary way with grave consequences.

Gorbatchev’s „new way of thinking” meant giving up the goals of socialism. He gave back the territories gained in WW2, ruined the Soviet armed forces, left socialist countries at the mercy of the forces of capitalism.

This was one of the biggest theoretical misconception of the CPSU’s 20th congress, which explained many political steps that contributed to the weakening and then toppling of the socialist system.

This was the false and incorrect interpretation of the principle of peaceful coexistence. Socialism will win on a world level if it produces more and better in economy, than capitalism does. But this doesn’t mean that military power can be given up.

Based on the false and incorrect interpretation of the principle of peaceful coexistence, the Soviet Union reduced a significant portion of the land and naval forces in the beginning of the 60’s. From the end of the 60’s it signed a number of agreements on the limitation and reduction of armaments and disarmament with the USA, that broke the delicate military balance which was so hard to establish, and more than that - made the Soviet Union vulnerable. This doesn’t mean that disarmament efforts weren’t needed, but it’s a fact that it led to the end of military balance. The mistake was not the disarmament, but the series of one-sided concessions to the US. Without the military power balance the socialist world became vulnerable on all other fields too, as the military balance had the greatest impact on capitalist countries.

The parliamentary road, as a way of creating socialism

The 20th congress of the CPSU declared that in the changed international conditions communist parties can get into power by parliamentary elections and can make socialism win.

„... the present situation offers the working class in a number of capitalst countries a real opportunity to unite the overwhelming majority of the people under its leadership and to secure the transfer of the basic means of production into the hands of the people. The Right-wing bourgeois parties and their governments are suffering bankruptcy with increasing frequency. In those circumstances the working class, by rallying around itself the toiling peasantry, the intelligentsia, all patriotic forces, and resolutely repulsing the opportunist elements who are uncapable of giving up the policy of compromise with the capitalists and landlords, is in a position to defeat the reactionary forces opposed to the popular interest, to capture a stable majority in parliament, and transform the latter from an organ of bourgeois democracy into a genuine instrument of the people’s will. (Applause.) In such an event this institution, traditional in many highly developed capitalist countries, may become an organ of genuine democracy, democracy for the working people.

The winning of a stable parliamentary majority backed by a mass revolutionary movement of the proletariat and of all the working people could create for the working class for a number of capitalist and former colonial countries the conditions needed to secure fundamental social changes.”[9]

The 22nd congress of the CPSU fixed this thesis in the party’s programme:

„In the conditions prevaling at present, in some capitalist countries the working class, headed by its forward detachment, has an opportunity to unite the bulk of the nation, win state power without a civil war and achieve the transfer of the basic means of production to the people upon the basis of a working class and popular front and other possible forms of agreement and political cooperation between different parties and democratic organisations. The working class, supported by the majority of the people and firmly repelling opportunist elements incapable of renouncing the policy of compromise with the capitalists and landlords, can defeat the reactionary, anti-popular forces, win a solid majority in parliament, transform it from a tool serving the class interestes of the bourgeoisie into an instrument serving the working people, launch a broad mass struggle outside parliament, smash the resistance of the reactionary forces, and provide the necessary conditions for a peaceful socialist revolution.” [10]

The CPSU’s thesis about the parliamentary way creates serious illusions in the workers’ movement. Many parties completely settle for election work and performance in the parliament. Some of the parties forget that the fight for the interests of workers, working people is a constant task of communists. Taking part in the parliament is not the goal for a communist party, but only a tool.

The Hungarian Workers’ Party is deeply convinced that socialism will be brought by a new popular socialist revolution. The party’s new programme, which was adopted in 2012, says:

We don’t know which year, which month and which day the new socialist revolution will win. But we know that it will win. It will win when the majority of the people understands through their own experiences that there is only one way to happiness, the new popular socialist revolution, and they will be willing to make an effort for it.[11]

Attitude to social democracy

The CPSU’s 20th congress declared that in order to prevent a world war, the strategic cooperation of communist and social democratic parties is necessary and possible.

„ Not a few of the misfortunes harussing the world today are due to the fact that in many countries the working class has been split for many years and its different groups do not present a united front, which only plays into the hands of the reactionary force. Yet, today, in our opinion, the prospect of changing this situation is opening up. Life has put on the agenda many questions which not only demand rapprochement and co-operation between all workers’ parties, but also create real possibilities for the co-operation. The most important of these questions is that of preventing a new war. If the working class come out as a united organised force and acts with firm resolution, there will be no war.”[12]

And the report goes on:

„All this places an historic responsibility upon all leaders of the labour movement. The interests of the struggle for peace make it imperetive to find points of contact and on these grounds to lay the foundations for co-operation, sweeping aside mutual incriminations. Here co-operatons with those circles of tne socialist movement whose views on the forms of transition to socialism differ from ours is also possible and essential. Among them are not a few people who are honestly mistaken on this question, but this is no obstacle for co-operation.Today many Social-Democrates stand for active struggle against the war danger and militarism, for rapproachment with the socialist countries, for unity of the labour movement.We sincerely greet these Social-Democrats and are willing to do everything necessary to join our efforts in the struggle for the noble cause of upholding peace and the interests of the working people.”[13]

The programme accepted at the CPSU’s 22nd congress is even more clear:

„The Communist parties favor cooperation with the Social-Democratic parties not only in the struggle for peace, for better living conditions of the working people, and for the preservation and extension of their democratic rights and freedoms, but also in the struggle to win power and build a socialist society.” [14]

Social democracy in the 19th century grew from the working masses of the capitalist countries, the trade union movement. They also dreamt about socialism, like communists, but in a long-long term, and on a daily basis they wanted to end the unfairness of capitalism, to make capitalist order nicer. Revolutionary Marxists never agreed with that, as capitalism, even in its best, most democratic and richest form is built on the exploitation of the working masses. Revolutionary Marxists always aimed for the creation of socialism.

But after the WW2 social democracy has undergone an essential change. There was plenty of money in the course of growth of general european well-being after the war. This made it possible for capitalist social democratic parties to give more to the masses, to create the so called „the welfare state”. In turn, the existence of the socialist world, where masses had the right to work, rest and access to free health care, forced the capitalist parties to do so. The so called „welfare state” in reality meant that a minority of rich peope lived on a very high standarf of living. The middle classes and a part of the working masses got much better conditions than before. The standard of living of large masses of working people, not speaking about the rising number of foreign migrants changed only to a limited degree.

After the economic difficulties of the 80’s they had less money. The socialist world collapsed, the external coercive force disappeared. Capitalist governments gave up the generous policy of the so called „welfare state”, and social democracy in turn declared the concept of the 3rd way. Since the 80’s socialism is not the goal, and they even gave up the previous traditional demands of social democracy and started to carry out neoliberal policies.

Social democracy played a significant role in undermining, weakening the socialist countries.. Under the slogans of the „Ostpolitik”, the „disarmament” and the „European cooperation” they actively took part in the preparation of the counter revolutions of 1989-91.

In the former socialist countries several parties emerged under the name socialist or social democrat. These parties are fundamentally different from Western paries because they have no social democratic past at all, no trade union background, they are not connected by their traditions to the workers. These parties, including the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP), from the first moment have been active participants of the capitalist counter revolutions of 1989-91, and became one of the pillars of the capitalist system. Their task is to mislead and manipulate working masses, to stabilise capitalism.

Experiences of the revolution in 1917 and the 90 years that have passed since clearly show that the goals of communists and social democrats are fundamentally different.

Experiences of Hungarian history prove that Hungarian social democrats betrayed the interests of the workers in 1919 and in 1898-90 as well. They gave up the communists to the gendarmerie of the Horthy-era and even nowadays they do not shy away from legal and governmental attacks on communists.

The 90 years since 1917 clearly show: if communists under conditions of capitalit system cooperate with social democrats in strategic questions, if they govern together, then this is always the communists who „pull the shorter” and who pay the biggest price.

The way of costruction socialism

The leadership of the CPSU after 1956, seeing the successes of socialism, made a false and in retrospect fatal conclusion: the victory of socialism is final and irreversible. The 22nd congress describes the party’s new strategy, the construction of the communist society.

„The Communist Party of the Soviet Union adopts its Third Program - the program of communist construction.”

„The material and technical base of communism will be built up by the end of the second decade (1971-80), ensuring an abundance of material and cultural values for the whole population, Soviet society will come close to a stage where it can introduce the principle of distribution according to needs, and there will be a gradual transition to one form of ownership – public ownership. Thus, a communist society will in the main be built in the USSR.” [15]

The programme of the RCWP-CPSU correctly states:

„Furthermore, the successful accomplishment of many tasks of socialist development, including the elimination of class antagonisms, led to the emergence in the party and the people of the illusion of consistency of further moving forward. This illusion of possibility to achieve quickly, withoit struggle, the higher phase of communism was fixed in the third party Programme, adopted in 1961. That demobilized the party, the working class, the toiling masses. The programm wrongly proclaimed the rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat and declared the public nature of such entirely class institutions as a party and a state, thus creating an ideological cover for their petty-bourgeois metamorphosis. The subjectivist approach was used to explain errors and deviations in the construction of socialism by cult of personality. The task of revival of the essence of the power of the Soviets was not even set, workers, already fragmented organizationally, now were ideologically disarmed at the face of a rising wave of the petty-bourgeois. This disarmament of the party and the workers was based on the official proclamation of the “final” victory of socialism in our country .”[16]

The decision of the CPSU was a strategical mistake which affected the other socialist countries too. After the 20th congress they increasingly underestimated the necessity of class struggle. They disregarded the fact that the representatives of the old ruling classes and their descendants were still alive, the implementation of the elements of a market economy contributed to the revival of the bourgeois forces. Parties were not prepared for actual class struggle.

Later under the flag of Gorbatchev’s perestroika, glasnosty, modernisation, rapprochement with Europe they introduced multi-party system, allowedand even helped the activity of the parties which were against socialism. With the false slogan of depolitisation they took out the army and the national security organs from under the control of the party and the people. System changes were prepared and carried out almost everywhere by reformist-opportunist forces. These forces deliberately crossed the border, beyond which we are talking not about the reform of socialism, but about the introduction of the capitalist system.


The socialist revolution in Russia in 1917 confirmed the correctness of Marxist-Leninist theory on the inevitability of the socialist revolution and the transition of humanity from the capitalist economic system to communism, the first phase of which is socialism. It was in October 1917 in Russia that a great historical epoch of transition of humanity from capitalism to socialism started.

Today, as never before, it is clear: The great October socialist revolution – the main event not only in the 20th century, but in the whole history of mankind, the event that showed the way of progressive development for many decades to come. In the result of the Great October revolution was dispelled the myth of the eternity of capitalism, capitalism ceased to be a world system. Since that time in the world exist two opposite social-economic systems, the struggle between them became the main form of manifestation of the main contradiction of the modern era – the contradiction between labor and capital.

The Great October inseparably interwined with the memory of the 20th century Hungarian socialism too. The successes of socialism proved that the Hungarian workers, the working people can manage being in power, creating a better life for millions, secure the survival and development of the Hungarian nation. Hungarian workers can still be proud of those decades, can draw strength to fight against capital system. This is the legacy of the Great October.

There was a lot of good in Hungarian socialism, though not everything was good. But undoubtedly there were much more things that could have been called successes, results. And it’s also beyond doubt that despite all its problems and mistakes that socialism was better, more successful and more humane than today’s capitalism.

The Hungarian Workers’ Party is following the footsteps of the Great October. We want socialism. We have learnt from the history of socialism. We are convinced that a new socialist society will give even more and even better.

[1] ... 01.htm#007


[3] ... Socialism/

[4]Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress. Foreign Languages Publishing House. Moscow 1956. Page 7.

[5]ibid, page 8

[6]ibid, page 13

[7]Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. International Publishers Co.,Inc., 1963. Page 62

[8] ibid, page 65

[9] Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress. Foreign Languages Publishing House. Moscow 1956. Pp.45-46

[10]Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. International Publishers Co.,Inc., 1963

[11] ... ticle/1169

[12]Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress. Foreign Languages Publishing House. Moscow 1956. Page 24


[14]Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. International Publishers Co.,Inc., 1963. Page 49

[15]Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. International Publishers Co.,Inc., 1963. Page 74

"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
Posts: 7592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island

Re: International Communist Review

Post by blindpig » Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:08 pm

Lenin’s approach to the analysis of imperialist alliances and to the use of contradictions between imperialists for developing revolutionary strategy of struggle under the conditions of modern Russia
11/5/15 5:29 PM

Nowadays communists in Russia have been facing the problem of establishing their position regarding the conflict of Russian capitalists with a part of Western imperialistic Oligarchy. Whereas the main reason for this conflict is still the struggle for control over Ukraine that manifested itself in the invocation and support for Fascism there performed by the biggest imperialist powers led by USA, the conflict has a wider scope. We can observe the confrontation over the issue of Syria between Russia on the one hand and USA and certain European countries on the other hand. We can see Russian politics aimed at creating friendly ties with such enemies of USA as Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, Korean Peoples’ Democratic Republic, the creation of Eurasian Economic Union headed by Russia on the territory of the USSR, this union to be a rival of USA and EU. We can see steps directed towards establishing co-operation with China and attempts to organize BRICS countries so that they should represent a sort of alternative to the American hegemony in the world.

Communists from all countries, especially from those that don’t belong to the narrow circle of imperialistic powers robbing the rest of the world, have been facing similar questions referring to the attitudes towards imperialistic politics as well as towards the politics of their own governments. To resolve these issues we should first of all analyze the politics of Lenin and of the USSR referring to imperialistic alliances and inter imperialist rivalry.

Lenin expressed his views on imperialistic alliances (here we mean not only military and diplomatic alliances but also deep rooted tendencies for unification, for creation of politic and economical alliances of the state or semi-state type) in his famous article “On the Slogan for a United States of Europe”[1]. While recognizing a certain progressive role that this slogan could have played under those concrete circumstances (the article was written in 1915), in case it had been linked to the revolutionary putting an end to the imperialistic war and to the overthrowing of Russian, German and Austrian monarchies, Lenin still expressed his general negative opinion of that slogan as from his point of view it created an illusion of possibility to create progressive alliances under conditions of Capitalism in its final, imperialistic stage.

“Of course, temporary agreements are possible between capitalists and between states. In this sense a United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists …but to what end? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting colonial booty against Japan and America, who have been badly done out of their share by the present partition of colonies, …”1 At the same time Lenin accepted and considered it necessary to use contradictions between imperialist powers and their alliances in the interests of proletarian state.

In his article “The Itch”[2] Lenin used to prove the possibility of co-operation with one of imperialistic alliance to defend the proletarian state against another one. Lenin meant the assistance from the imperialists of Britain and France against the advancing German troops (this was a moment in 1918 when Germany resumed its advance on having broken the peace talks).

“If Kerensky, a representative of the ruling class of the bourgeoisie, i.e., the exploiters, makes a deal with the AngloFrench exploiters to get arms and potatoes from them and at the same time conceals from the people the treaties which promise (if successful) to give one robber Armenia, Galicia and Constantinople, and another robber Baghdad, Syria and so forth, is it difficult to understand that this deal is a predatory, swindling, vile deal on the part of Kerensky and his friends? No, this is not difficult to understand. Any peasant, even the most ignorant and illiterate, will understand it.

But if a representative of the exploited, oppressed class, after this class has overthrown the exploiters, and published and annulled all the secret and annexationist treaties, is subjected to a bandit attack by the imperialists of Germany, can he be condemned for making a “deal” with the Anglo-French robbers, for obtaining arms and potatoes from them in return for money or timber, etc.? Can one find such a deal dishonourable, disgraceful, dirty?

No, one cannot. Every sensible man will understand this and will ridicule as silly fools those who with a “lordly” and learned mien undertake to prove that “the masses will not understand” the difference between the robber war of the imperialist Kerensky (and his dishonourable deals with robbers for a division of jointly stolen spoils) and the Kalyayev deal of the Bolshevik Government with the Anglo-French robbers in order to get arms and potatoes to repel the German robber“ 39.

The peace treaty of Brest that was signed with Germany soon after, was also an example of using contradictions between imperialists in order to maintain and develop the state of proletarian dictatorship as well as the treaty with Germany signed in Rapallo in 1922. Of course, the best known of such examples is the Anti-Hitler coalition between USSR, Great Britain and USA aimed against Fascist Germany and her Anti-Comintern Pact’s allies. We can state that these were exactly the forces of Comintern with the assistance of bourgeois democracy’s forces that achieved the victory over forces of Fascism.

Current situation in the world is characterized by increasing rivalries between imperialists. USA go on dominating the world - the opportunity that became possible after the downfall of USSR. Nevertheless other imperialists strive to undermine their positions. These are the imperialists of European Union, first of all Germany and France, we should also mention China whose industrial output can be compared with the one of USA, and also Russia.

Modern Russia is the biggest “splinter” of USSR. Despite the destruction of industrial and scientific-technological potential if compared with the Soviet time, she still represents a serious enough power that possesses nuclear weapons. By the end of nineties Russian capital had completed the theft of socialized property performed by way of privatization, had quickly passed the stage of capitals’ concentration and reached the stage of monopoly capital. They had constructed their political system and as soon as they stopped feeling a direct danger of Socialism’s restoration (in particular because they knew how to use opportunists), the big Capital of Russia started to pursue more militant foreign politics while aspiring to obtain a “place under the sun”.

Nevertheless, despite all the patriotic verbiage and actual deterioration of the relations with the West, Russia actually remains a source of raw materials and a sales market for their products (nowadays for the products of China as well, in particular of the western TNC that have their manufacturing facilities there). For all the super profits from the exports of expensive oil and gas as well as of other natural resources, there has been no real substantial modernization of economics let alone reaching the Soviet level of production during the years of Putin in power. At the same time there still remain certain high tech enterprises and scientific centers surviving from the Soviet period, in particular in the field of military industry. Essentially weak and hesitant politics of the Russian state in her relations with the leading imperialist powers is determined by several circumstances. First - it’s a weak materials basis and insufficient human resources (population of Russia is less than a half of the USSR’s population and as different from USSR she doesn’t have any ideologically motivated military allies); second: it’s dependence of Russian ruling class on the West. We can see it in the case of the conflict in Ukraine: on the one hand the joining of Crimea and the support to the insurrection in Donbass – initially weak, but later a substantial one. On the other hand the promises by Putin not to let the bloodshed in the East of Ukraine remained just promises, Russia keeps making concessions to the West, signs disadvantageous agreements, makes insurgents stop their advance in crucial moments. Almost immediately after the coup Russia had actually recognized the new regime in Kiev thus helping it to strengthen itself and to unleash the war in Donbass. Russian government partially under the pressure from the West, but primarily basing on the interests of Russian capital (retaining huge properties and familiar markets) has been granting Ukraine favourable economic conditions – Russian authorities themselves outraged by the politics of Kiev claimed that they had rendered Ukraine an assistance for the total sum of about 100 billion USD (discounts, credits etc.) whereas USA only provided an assistance worth 5 billion USD. We can also add that Russian capitalists do their best to avoid a serious break with the West and they only strive to negotiate more advantageous conditions for the “partnership”. Meanwhile in reality Russian capitalists have been helping USA to implement their anti-Russian plans, in particular these plans aimed at interrupting with the economical co-operation and integration between Russia and Europe. Trade turnover between RF and EU countries before the introduction of sanctions was around 420 bil.USD in all (132 of import and 282 of export) whereas the one between USA and EU was about 500 billion USD – we can see that these two figures are quite comparable which means a real competition. The introduction of sanctions has decreased the turnover of trade between RF and EU by 12,2% (import) and by 7,1% (export). At the same time imports from USA to Russia has increased by 23% and Russian exports to USA increased by 7%. This way looks the war of sanctions carried out simultaneously against Russia and against EU.

As far as the western Imperialism is concerned, it is not united. EU is in fact a much stronger competitor for USA than Russia and the conflict over Ukraine allowed USA to destroy the emerging alliance between RF and Germany and to create a united front of western powers against Russia under the leadership of USA – this is a great success of Washington in its struggle against not only Russia but against European competitors as well, let alone the struggle for Ukraine and for the subdued status of their European allies.

Economical potential of EU still significantly exceeds its political significance that could be explained by the absence of unity in this loose structure. Apart from that, there are several states within EU that actually act as USA’s agents. Meanwhile all this helps USA go on making EU to follow their political line.

The role of China has increased. This country while pursuing her own economic interests has started to support Russia in a number of issues, still China has managed to avoid any involvement in acute conflicts with her competitors, though in the future this will most likely become inevitable.

In the political lexicon there has appeared the word “BRICS” (an abbreviation of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) this word to denote an informal alliance, a form of co-operation of fairly strong states that try to pursue politics that would be more independent from Washington and that aspire to dispose of “the single-pole model” of the world. Meanwhile this alliance is more a theoretical thing as no obliging agreements have been signed, and the interests of these states as well as their politics don’t always coincide.

When in the majority of countries there still continues capitalist reaction that has followed the downfall of USSR and the Eastern Block, and capitalists can start a struggle for the redistribution of the world without hindrances, we can observe quite the opposite in Latin America - a “left turn” that started since the end of nineties. There appeared a whole block of countries (ALBA) that proclaimed the socialist way of development and anti-imperialism, this block led by Cuba and Venezuela. Even some moderate governments of LA, like the governments of Argentina and Brazil have been trying to pursue politics that are more independent from Washington and that take into account the demands of working masses in their countries to a greater extent. Such situation in LA can be explained not only by objective social-political conditions (as early as beginning from the second half of the XX Century LA has turned into one of potential locations of social revolution), but also by the fact that after the counterrevolution in USSR and in Eastern Europe in LA there remained a socialist state – Cuba, this state being a small one, still capable of influencing the processes in the region to some extent. Left revolutionary forces have also managed to retain their potential and ideological influence. That’s why people’s uprising there lead not to an exchange of one bourgeois government for another, or even worse, as it was the case in Egypt, Ukraine, but at least in certain instances there were achieved real changes of power in the interests of working classes. We consider it essential to mention that such progressive anti-imperialist reforms are portrayed by a number of “left” politicians as the way of XXI Century’s Socialism, which in our opinion is not correct and even more than that – it’s harmful. Such fascination with reforms (in most cases the progressive ones) leads to the rejection of the basic laws of transition to Socialism, the scientific Communism itself. Venezuela in the period of Chavez presidency became the leader in carrying out such reforms. Nevertheless there are also serious weaknesses characteristic of the revolutionary movement in LA. Here we can mention the influence of petty bourgeois ideology, inconsistency in implementing socialist changes and worship of bourgeois democracy by many of the leaders there. We should also remember that ALBA countries are not the biggest and the strongest even within LA and their abilities to resist Imperialism are limited.

Ad it is known the process of production’s and capital’s concentration, the transition from the pre-monopolistic Capitalism to the monopolistic and later to the state-monopolistic one, are historically predetermined processes and taking this fact into consideration – they are progressive as far as they create material preconditions for Socialism. «Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly»[3]. Of course it doesn’t mean that proletariat shouldn’t struggle against the state-monopoly Capitalism. Yes, state-monopoly Capitalism does create material conditions for Socialism, that’s why the attempts to roll back to the pre-monopoly stages of Capitalism the struggle for “small and medium range business” etc. would be reactionary. Nevertheless the second part of the Lenin’s phrase is no less important: this state-capitalist monopoly should be destroyed as a capitalist monopoly by way of socialist revolution, thus transforming it so as it should benefit all people. Until the revolution is not performed and state-monopoly capitalism exploits and suppresses the class of workers and all working people, the main task of proletariat is still the struggle for destruction of Capitalism, for turning the material preconditions into real Socialism, into public property preserved by the power of working class. This is the dialectics of social development.

All this is also applicable to international capitalist alliances like EU and the Eurasian Economic Union.

On the one hand under conditions of Imperialism international economic and political alliances promote the development of means of production, concentration of industry and capital, i.e. progressive processes. On the other hand only unequal alliances are possible under capitalism, when weaker allies are subdued and exploited by the stronger ones and the development is often lopsided and malformed. A typical example of such alliance is European Union and the Euro zone where two states, Germany and France impose their conditions onto all the rest. Such situation may lead to a regress of industry in certain countries instead of its development depending on the role allocated to the country in the labour division’s framework within the union. Greece, East European countries and the Baltic States can be demonstrated as example of degradation that followed their joining EU. In case the economic alliance is also accompanied by a political one, such new supranational entity turns into a powerful tool of ruling classes to subdue the working classes along with the national states. The transition of many powers of office from national states to the “European” bodies in EU deprived working people even of those limited possibilities to influence the politics of their governments that the workers used to have in their national states. It’s quite obvious that such unions serve the purpose to intensify the exploitation of proletariat and to increase the profits of financial oligarchy.

As far as the Customs and the Eurasian Unions lead by Russia are concerned, these are also imperialistic alliances created in the interests of the big capital from the participating countries, first of all the interests of Russian monopolistic capital that subdues itself weaker post-Soviet states (and competing in the struggle for them with USA and EU). Nevertheless it would be wrong to oppose economic integration and the tendencies to unification on the former USSR’s territory as USSR used to be a united economical complex and to some extent remains so even in a capitalist form, the more so as communists from the former Soviet republics have always called for reunification of our people.

Anyway at the moment this alliance doesn’t offer any apparently unequal conditions for the participants. We should mention that the process of the “Eurasian integration” is still at initial stages only; there is yet no discussion of common currency’s introduction or of creating a common state. Besides that, as Russian imperialists are weaker than the American or West European ones, they have to offer more advantageous conditions to attract junior partners which improves the conditions for reproduction and struggle of working class in the former Soviet republics.

Still communists should abstain from an unequivocal support of Eurasian Economic Union (as well as from ascribing to this union a possibility of progressive development and a solution of certain issues in favour of working people). They shouldn’t do it because regardless of what some “left” national-patriots claim, this union has nothing to do with the Soviet Union apart from partial overlapping of the territories. We should also remember that in this union there participate certain reactionary oppressive regimes like the one in Kazakhstan that brutally suppresses any opposition, in particular the communist one and shoot down striking workers (like in Zhanaozen).

There is yet another threat that is even more important: the active support provided by Russian communists (or to be more exact by their opportunistic part) to the pro-Russian alliances on the post-Soviet territories could eventually lure communists to the trap of bourgeois-patriotic ideology, could infect them with the virus of social-chauvinism and dull the hatred to their own oppressors. We think that even without us Russian monopolists could ensure the implementation of “progressive” features of the Eurasian integration (like economic growth, the defense against American Imperialism’s expansion) in case they are in a position to do so (if not - we cannot help them anyway), whereas there is nobody to fight with the great-power chauvinism but us.

We think that at the moment the general attitude of Russian communists towards Eurasian Economic Union should be calm and balanced. We should discuss strengths and weaknesses of the union while clarifying what is positive or negative. At the same time we shouldn’t either oppose this union due to anti-imperialistic reasons, or provide uncritical support while considering this process as an alleged return to the USSR.

We can also reasonably apply these considerations when analyzing the idea of creating the union state of Russia and Belorussia. In this case we should also take into account the fact that Russian capital strives to get hold of the large centralized economics that has been preserved (and that has even been developed) in Belorussia since the Soviet times. RCWP supports the politics of Belorussian President only aimed at repelling the attempts of different types of “privatizators” both local and foreign, at retaining the industrial potential of the republic. Communists oppose the predatory intentions of Russian capital to swallow the economics of Belorussia and by all means support the process of getting closer and combining the efforts of the working people in both countries in their joint struggle for Socialism.

At the moment European Union is a pretty powerful supranational organization that is a tool of monopolistic capital’s domination over the people of its member countries, of suppressing workers’ movement and of expansion. That’s why the demands of communists in a number of European countries to leave both EU and the Euro Zone are quite fair. Nevertheless these claims make sense only when they are combined with the demands to introduce radical social changes and to change the standing social order as it is done by the Communist Party of Greece. The slogans to quit EU or the Euro zone with the domination of capital left untouched, these slogans being put forward by various right and nationalistic forces as well as by the groups calling themselves “leftist” that are in fact pro-bourgeois and opportunist, cannot be regarded as progressive at all. In case a revolutionary situation arises in the majority of EU countries or in the leading countries there, the slogans to leave EU should be probably withdrawn. In case EU interrupts with progressive changes in a country, then to leave EU would be necessary and reasonable step.

We should separately analyze the situation in Ukraine and Novorossia. Capitalist social order was established in Ukraine similar to the rest other Soviet republics right after the counterrevolutionary coup 1985-91 and the destruction of USSR. Whereas Russian capital that got the biggest chunk of the country had managed to stabilize the situation in Russia by the end 90-ies and despite its dependency on the West even started to play a relatively independent role in the world while showing its own imperialistic ambitions, Ukraine had turned into a battlefield of competing imperialist powers (USA, EU and Russia) and the corresponding oligarchic clans. Economic co-operation between Ukraine and Russia first of all in the field of military industry significantly contributed to the maintaining and growth of Russian Imperialism’s military potential.

In February 2014 there took place a reactionary coup in Ukraine. That coup was organized by USA, EU and the groups of local big capitalists closely associated with the West. A puppet semi-Fascist regime was established in the country whereas its ideology combine nationalism, anti-communism and anti-sovietism and its politics are aimed at turning Ukraine in a sort of colony of EU and USA that is hostile to Russian Federation.

The so called “Communist Party of Ukraine” headed by Simonenko is a right opportunist party similar to Russian CPRF. In the 90-ies the party enjoyed a significant influence and Simonenko contested Kuchma in the second round of presidential elections in 1999 while having a support of about 40% of the population. Nevertheless the unscrupulousness and conciliation of that party led to their loss of popular trust, whereas there wasn’t enough time for strong and genuine communist parties to appear. These are reasons why the just outrage of the people at the abomination of Capitalism was used by right bourgeois powers including nationalists and fascists and by the agents of Imperialism, whereas the anti-fascist movement that appeared later in the South-East of Ukraine was left without class organization and was subdued to Russian Imperialism. Still we believe it necessary to mention that while having serious reasons to criticize the opportunism of CPU we strongly condemn the decision by present authorities of Ukraine to ban all Communist parties there. We show our solidarity with the struggle of Ukrainian communists against the repressions unleashed by the junta in Kiev.

We should undoubtedly consider the anti-fascist struggle of the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as a progressive one. Despite the fact that both these republics are of bourgeois nature, that they are pro-Russian, that there can be observed various reactionary trends among the insurgents (like nationalists, monarchists, White Guards), there is maintained bourgeois democracy and communists have possibility to act and to promote their views (though to a limited extent – e.g. they cannot participate in the elections), there have even appeared left armed units within the insurgent army of Lugansk. The Soviet symbols there have been preserved, whereas the respect to the Soviet heritage, especially to the memory of the WWII has been widely practiced. All this differs so much from the deeds of the regime in Kiev where they make heroes from Hitler’s collaborators Bandera and Shukhevich, and where communist ideology has been banned.

The politics of Russia towards Donbass and Ukraine has an ambivalent nature. From the one hand Putin’s government renders certain material, information, and apparently also certain technical-military assistance to Donetsk and Lugansk Republics while unwilling to give up the struggle for at least a part of Ukraine. It’s only natural that Russian authorities ensured that the bourgeois regimes in Donetsk and Lugansk should be totally controlled by Moscow. On the other hand under the pressure of western Imperialism the regime of Putin keeps bending and backing away while not letting the resistance forces to exploit their military success. He’s actually recognized and even sponsors the Kiev junta of Poroshenko. We are of the opinion that communists both in Russia and Ukraine should show their support to the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, though such support should also contain a degree of criticism. That is we should support the anti-fascist and democratic struggle of the working people of Donbass and simultaneously criticize the bourgeois and pro-Kremlin character of these regimes as well as the reactionary trends within them. Russian communists should demand that Russian government should officially recognize the choice of people in Donetsk and Lugansk republics and give them any help they would need. Nevertheless, communists shouldn’t similar to social-patriots consider a possibility of immediate deployment of Russian troops as there are not military reasons to do so at the moment and would only intensify the imperialistic conflict and suppress all the progressive trends in Donbass.

One might ask a question if the support rendered by Russian communists to the republics of Donbass and their demands that Russian government should assist the resistance, are in fact a support of “their own” Russian imperialism in its conflict with rival powers and coming over to the side of social-chauvinism. If Donbass and Ukraine are just another point of dissent between various groups of imperialists is there any sense, or progressive meaning in the struggle of Donbass against Fascism and western Imperialism? As it is known Lenin recognized that the struggle of Serbia against the Austrian aggression during the WWI was justified (we should mention that exactly Serbia was used as a formal cause to unleash the WWI), later though he wrote that the fact didn’t have any meaning in the general assessment of the war, as Serbia was only a pretext to start the war for the redistribution of the world among imperialist predators.

“The present war is, in substance, a struggle between Britain, France and Germany for the partition of colonies and for the plunder of rival countries; on the part of tsarism and the ruling classes of Russia, it is an attempt to seize Persia, Mongolia, Turkey in Asia, Constantinople, Galicia, etc. The national element in the Austro-Serbian war is an entirely secondary consideration and does not affect the general imperialist character of the war”[4] .

We are of the opinion that in our case an attempt to find similarity between the two historical events would be wrong. Unlike the situation in 1914 we don’t currently have two groups of imperialists with comparable military potential, these groups only looking for a pretext to start hostilities. What we have is the western Imperialism that dominates in the world (though the West is pretty heterogeneous it presents a united front as to regards Ukraine) and that has been striving not only to retain its supremacy, but also to extend it while in the countries that were appointed victims the imperialists use as their tools the most reactionary movements, such as Fascists, fanatical islamists etc. On the other hand there are attempts of the Russian imperialism that has managed to get a bit stronger lately and China to somewhat curb these intentions while trying to retain the relations with their “western partners”. What is important: there is semi-fascist regime in Kiev and the anti-fascist struggle in Donbass and communists ought to support this struggle as they did in the past while supporting anti-fascist struggle in capitalist countries even before USSR entered the WWII.

Of course there exists a threat that communists could slide down to social-chauvinism and to servicing domestic bourgeoisie (that is done by CPRF). That’s why Russian communists should adhere to the class approach and while practicing this approach they should focus their attention on harsh criticism of their own Capitalism and reveal it’s predatory nature. They should criticize the oligarchic pro-Russian regimes in the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, they should resist the nationalistic anti-Ukrainian hysteria as well. In other words they should explain that the followers of Vlasov are no better than the followers of Bandera.

The accession of Crimea is presented by Russian authorities as the biggest success of Putin, this attitude fully shared by CPRF. The slogan “Crimea is ours!” has turned into a symbol of local form of jingoism bordering a sort of nationalistic hysteria. On the other hand pro-western propaganda accuses Russian government in aggression and in annexation of foreign territories.

Sure that Crimea has always been the region of the Ukraine that demonstrated the highest hostility towards Ukrainian nationalists. That’s why it was only natural that after the nationalistic coup in Ukraine an insurrection took place there and the semi-peninsula subsequently joined Russian Federation. In the referendum the joining to Russia was supported by the overwhelming majority of local inhabitants. We should mention though that such an option as independence wasn’t presented in the ballots: one had to choose only between joining Russia or to remain being a part of Ukraine under the rule of semi-fascist junta.

Joining Russia and establishing in Crimea the rule of Russian capital and bureaucracy excluded the possibility of any progressive changes there, that could have been theoretically possible in case an independent republic similar to the ones of Donetsk and Lugansk had been established there. Russian oligarchy has taken the place of the Ukrainian one, though the properties of Ukrainian oligarchs with some exceptions were left intact as well. The unification of Crimea with Russia has also led to the exclusion of the most dedicated and militantly ant-fascist region from the struggle with Fascism that continues in Ukraine on the territory of Donbass.

Meanwhile the “abduction” of Crimea and its unscrupulous inclusion into Russian Federation that the Russian authorities and Putin personally so much boasted about (there was even shot a special film dedicated to the event), allowed the junta in Kiev to boost up Ukrainian nationalism and hatred to Russia, all this to be used as a means to distract the attention of Ukrainians from those anti-national politics that the semi-fascist pro-western regime pursues, and as an ideological tool to mobilize the cannon fodder necessary for the war in Donbass.

Theoretical analysis could bring us to a conclusion that the accession of Crimea looks pretty ambivalent even in case we forget about the class struggle and consider the problem focusing only on the task of the development of the anti-fascist struggle in Ukraine , or even more than that – if we consider the accession of Crimea based on the interests of Russian Federation itself only. One might suppose that the creation of anti-fascist resistance center for the whole Ukraine, or at least creating there an independent republic similar to the latter ones of Donetsk and Lugansk to be officially recognized by Russia, could have brought more benefits. Still, these options are no more available. Marxism considers existing reality rather than theoretical opportunities. We have no doubts that the unification of Crimea with Russia is objectively more preferable than leaving the population there to the tender mercies of Nazis from Kiev. Examples of progressive steps taken by reactionary forces are known in history. For example Marx was of the opinion that the unification of Germany pursued by Bismarck was objectively a progressive task. Why then Marx was never listed among Bismarck supporters and went on struggling with him? The reason is that there exist reactionary forms of implementing objectively progressive movement. Lenin believed that the politics of tsarist Prime-Minister Stolypin would lead to the development of Capitalism in Russian rural areas, i.e. to objectively progressive result, which didn’t prevent him from struggle with Stolypin as uncompromising as the one led by Leo Tolstoy. Reactionary form of implementing progressive reforms could lead to Fascism, as it happened in Germany where Capitalism had been developed in the so called Prussian form.

That’s why communists have no reasons to celebrate the “reunification” of Crimea and Russian Federation and to consider it to be a prominent success of Putin’s regime. It is the more so that for us both Crimea, Ukraine and Russia are parts of our genuine Motherland – USSR.

Still we believe that communists sure have even less reasons to reject and condemn the accession of Crimea into Russia similar to certain leftist organizations closely associated with EU organizations. In case Crimea had been annexed by Russian Federation at the time of Yanukovich or even the one of Yushchenko, that would have been an obviously reactionary action. Under the given historical circumstances after the “Euromaidan” coup in Ukraine the accession of Crimea was a form of the local peoples anti-fascist’s struggle and the means to avoid the fate that Ukrainian nationalists had prepared for them and that was subsequently implemented by them in Odessa and now in Donbass.

To consider the accession we should bear in mind the fact that this was a realization of the people’s desire that was unequivocally and willingly expressed by the local population in the course of referendum and that was indeed supported by the vast majority of the Crimean inhabitants.

For all the attractiveness of the idea that in Crimea there could have been established an independent center of anti-fascist struggle with the prospects of progressive social changes, we should come to a conclusion that such idea is unrealistic if we remember that there is no strong communist party both in Crimea and Ukraine. So it’s quite natural that the people of Crimea chose the simplest way of escaping the “Maidan” regime of Kiev – i.e. flight to Russian Federation. Besides that, joining Russia allowed them to avoid a war on their territory.

We are of the opinion that the general attitude of Russian communists to the accession of Crimea should read as follows: we recognize the will of Crimea’s population and even consider the accession positively as a way to save people from a direct threat of Fascism, but that’s all to it. Meanwhile our task is to make working people of Crimea to join the struggle against Russian Capitalism, which is not easy as the majority of public at large still percepts bourgeois Russia and the person of Putin as if they were a sort saviors.

Russia and progressive states. The relations of Russia with socialist Cuba and DPRK, with the socialist government of Venezuela and the progressive regime of Syria. All these states are enemies of USA (Syria is also hostile to France and UK). Russia has been developing economic, political and military-technical co-operation with these states. Though they are not so big and powerful as USSR used to be, these states still represent centers of progress and liberation movement. American Imperialism has been striving to strangle these regimes. Under such conditions their friendship with Russia that is a nuclear power and still retains a significant potential despite 25 years of capitalist devastation acquires a special importance.

Whereas in 2011 the government of Putin-Medvedev didn’t hesitate to leave Libya to the tender mercies of NATO aggressors (though that country has never had significant importance for Russian capital), in the case of Syria Russian authorities on having understood the degree of NATO’s brazenness and the reluctance to set limit to their ambitions, rendered to Assad diplomatic and economic support. This support was not especially strong, but Russia still blocked anti-Syrian resolutions in the UN Security Council, supplied weapons and gave credits – all this considerably helped Syria to go on struggling. It’s clear though that these are Syrian people and the authorities who ensured that the battle is not lost – the rotten oligarchic regime of Yanukovich was overturned despite all the billions from Moscow.

Co-operation with Russia is also very important for ALBA countries – this a union of progressive regimes of Latin America led by Cuba and Venezuela that have been performing a “left turn” there.

Russian bourgeois regime has nothing to do with the left and socialist regimes in these countries, nevertheless strategic considerations, economic interests and the struggle with the USA competition make it “friends” with these regimes that are alien from the class point of view.

The politics of these governments directed at establishing co-operation and alliance with bourgeois government of Russia should be considered absolutely correct as an example of using rivalries between imperialists in the interests of progressive forces. Similar politics were carried out by USSR during the WWII when the alliance aimed against Nazi Germany had been created.

USA and Cuba have recently taken steps to normalize their relationship. Some people, especially those from national-patriotic circles accuse Cuba of next to treason. We consider the foreign politics of Cuban government to be correct. Cuba is not obliged to blindly follow Russian Imperialism under any circumstances. It’s only natural when Cuba while using the contradictions between imperialists not only enjoys friendship with Russia, but also gets certain concessions from USA as well.

That’s why on having taken the above into consideration Russian communists should reservedly approve the improvement of relationships between Russia and these countries and endorse further steps in this direction while putting the main emphasis on the benefits that the workers’ movement in these countries can gain from such politics. .

CPRF gives its full support to the Russian ruling regime’s foreign politics. Leaders of CPRF together with the rest of various national-patriots express their satisfaction over the fact that the President has finally called to memory “national interests”. The fact that these are actually the class interests of bourgeoisie they prefer not to discuss. CPRF in fact gave up any opposition to Putin even in internal politics while claiming that they call for the resignation of the “Prime Minister Medvedev’s government” as if Medvedev was not a direct appointee of Putin, as if he didn’t report to Putin and represented an independent figure. No wonder that this party shows such attitudes: it’s always been one of the regime’s pillars, whereas not only its political practice but it s ideology as well have always been that of social-democracy and bourgeois patriotism as opposed to Marxism and proletarian Internationalism.

It’s only too obvious that communists are obliged to reveal that the essence of the ruling regime’s politics, including its foreign politics, is the protection of Russian big capital’s essence. Russian foreign politics are based on the aspiration of Russian capitalist oligarchy to retain and extend its sphere of influence and to increase its profits obtained by exploitation of proletariat. On a number of occasions we can approve certain moves of the authorities in their foreign politics, like the support of Donbass, or co-operation with Cuba and DPRK, still this doesn’t in the least mean that we advocate the “class piece” or that we should give up the struggle against the ruling regime, the struggle for overthrowing capitalism in Russia and for going back to the socialist way of development.

More than that: communists should remember that as Lenin indicated, they must reveal first of all the aggressive politics of their own capitalists and not those of their foreign rivals.

Meanwhile communists should not reject all patriotic feelings and slogans as it is practiced by certain Trotskyites and Anarchists’ groups. We should understand that the ruling regime of Russia with all its patriotic rhetoric and imperialistic politics has not only failed to resolve social problems of the country, but the authorities have also failed to change the “peripheral”, depending solely on sales of raw materials character of Russian Capitalism that was established in the 90-ies and is actually an appendix to the Western Capitalism. The politics of Russian Federation aimed at integration of post-Soviet states under her control have not only been facing the resistance of imperialistic rivals. The problem is that modern Russia cannot offer any attractive idea different from the Western ideology to the peoples of these states, whereas the Western imperialists are wealthier and stronger. Western imperialists watch the spaces and natural wealth of Russia with longing, there even can be heard opinions that one state cannot control such huge territories. They wouldn’t object to Russia’s repeating the fate of USSR and her splitting into several units providing the West with energy and raw materials. The essence of patriotism of Putin and modern ruling circles of Russia is the demand that “they should perform this task themselves without splitting the bourgeois state”.

Communists, who are heirs to the great history of USSR and have a real program for genuine revolutionary resurgence of the country, shouldn’t leave patriotism to bourgeois regime or to nationalists. Nevertheless, they should take care that this patriotism takes anti-bourgeois nature, i.e. should be directed against bourgeois state and that it should be associated with proletarian Internationalism and with the struggle against domestic oppressors.


One may come to a conclusion that our views expressed on many issues in this article are complex and contradictory. For example we suggest that the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk should be given a support accompanied by criticism, rather than to give them unconditional support or identify them with Russian authorities. One can remind us that Bolsheviks of Lenin always looked for a radical solution of issues, but under no circumstances this means a search for extreme solutions only or using simplified schemes of life description. The constant aspiration to take one of the most extreme positions would mean an idealistic rather than Marxist approach that would be based on emotions rather than on political criteria. Marxism teaches us to analyze real situations and existing contradictions of the objective reality. Sometimes we need to put forward the simplest slogans based on this reality and to take a radical position (like the slogan “All power to the Soviets” in the period of getting ready for the October Revolution). In other instances a correct position may look pretty complicated and even outwardly contradictory. These contradictions though are not the result of mistakes in formal logic, they are dialectic contradictions reflecting the inconsistency of the objective reality. We can find many such examples in the practice of Lenin and Bolsheviks’ party, some of which can be found above. Marxist analysis should not make concessions to the attempts to unduly simplify issues. At the same time communist propaganda must be able to present a complicated analysis in a way that could be understood by people, to choose the most suitable images and slogans, to put correct syllables depending from the requirements of the current situation.

[1] ... aug/23.htm

[2] ... feb/22.htm

[3] V.I. Lenin Collected works v. 34, p. 192 (Soviet edition in Russian). ... 5zz99h-360

[4] (V.I. Lenin collected works 5th edition, USSR, vol. 26 page 162 - ... feb/19.htm). ... rn-Russia/

Well, the conclusion is good, as is much else, but there are certainly some problems here. I think the operative word here is 'substantial'. Neither Russia, nor any other capitalist states, is offering any substantial competition to US capital. Russian manufacturing has been gutted, it's wealth now solely from resource extraction. And this leaving aside the 'comprador' issue.

China is not a capitalist state, though it currently has capitalists, has a unique position as both workshop and bank of the US. Despite bellicose pronouncements I think the US ruling class has a real conundrum here, and I suspect this is not accidental. So serious competition is thus far avoided.

Application of Lenin's definition of Imperialism is flawed without considering the specific relationships, is simplistic verging upon idealistic.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply