Letters

No support

The capitalist states are having an inter-imperialist geopolitical spat. The USA is waning as the global hegemon - a status that it took from Britain after World War II. It has manufactured a crisis on the border of Russia, to stifle European Union moves toward geopolitical autonomy from USA, and to isolate Russia, before moving on to further hostile measures to try to constrain the rise of China. At least we probably will not suffer another world war, like the last time the hegemon waned.

The outcome will likely be that Russia further orientates geopolitically, economically and financially towards Eurasia. US hegemony may well prove temporary in Europe, as it is so dependent on Russia for fossil fuels, and there is no way that Europe can make up anything like the energy that it gets from Russia through fossil fuels or ‘green’ energy. That sort of increased production is simply not on the cards.

This is the last gasp of the USA as global hegemon. It will lose the status of the dollar as the global reserve currency that underpins the USA constantly living beyond its means, propping up endless state debt. Bourgeois states around the world will not risk putting their eggs into that basket, when the USA has shown that it will cut it off at will. Russia, China, India, Saudi and the rest will all find ways of trading, according to their own interests, without the dollar. The USA is a ‘naked emperor’ at this point, and basically they have not got a clue what they are doing in their latest debacle.

As Marxists we do not get drawn into any bourgeois nonsense. We are not tied to any medieval metaphysical doctrine about a ‘just war’. The reality is much closer to the sort of scenario that Aristotle recognised, in which states fight for their own interests to increase their power, their money and their status. The medieval ‘moralistic’ nonsense just dresses that up, with every state claiming to be the ‘just’ actor.

Bourgeois states care about ‘sovereignty’ insofar as it suits their interests to do so. They want the citizens to believe all the propaganda about bourgeois state ‘rights’ as the pretext for wars, but the states do not ‘believe’ it for a moment. The USA/UK/Nato will violate the ‘sovereignty’ of other countries whenever it suits them, like in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Serbia, etc. If they are not taking ‘sovereignty’ as the pretext for war, then they are taking some other bourgeois ‘moralistic’ pretext, like ‘humanitarianism’. But there is no ‘moral’ difference between the bourgeois states.

These are all pretexts for the pursuit of power - nothing else. As Marxists, we obviously do not fall for bourgeois ideological nonsense. ‘Moral’ and ideological forms reflect the stage of economic development, and the productive property relations of the society. They are historically relative, transient and reflect the power structures of the society. Bourgeois ‘sovereignty’ is the assertion, by the bourgeois state, of its own ‘rights’ to dominate the society over which it holds sway. Bourgeois ‘democracy’ is just a front for that.

So we do not ‘support’ Ukraine or Russia, let alone the British state, the USA or Nato. We do not support any bourgeois states, and we do not assert any of their supposed ‘prerogatives’ or ‘rights’. We do not care for bourgeois ‘sovereignty’ or for their ‘humanitarian’ pretexts. The only ‘prerogatives’ that we care for are proletarian - which will become a social reality, only once the economic base, which ideology reflects, is transformed under proletarian control.

Our rights and those of the bourgeois states are entirely opposed. Every assertion of bourgeois rights is an act of submission to the bourgeois state, and a negation of proletarian rights and historical aspirations. We do not support bourgeois states: we want to destroy them all and establish our own societies.

John Browne
email

Pro-Nato left

I have detected what are effectively three pro-Nato positions taken by the left. They are as follows (ordered from least to most absurd):

1. The social chauvinism and outright pro-imperialism of groups like the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and Novara Media, who simply parrot the propaganda of the imperialists and eschew any serious exploration and analysis of the conflict. They simply back Nato against Russia.

2. The ‘plague on both their houses’ attitude exemplified by the World Socialist Website, which wants to condemn both sides and calls for the working classes of Russia and Ukraine to unify to defeat their common enemies. This utopian drivel is effective support for Nato’s actions, because neutrality always favours the strongest side - just ask the Palestinians about that.

3. Those who unreservedly condemn ‘Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine’, all the while pointing out the very pertinent reasons that Russia should indeed have carried out its special operations! Including Nato courting Ukraine for membership (military training, equipment, bio-labs, nuclear weapons and all), Ukraine’s murderous actions against its own population in the disenfranchised eastern regions and Ukraine’s belligerent, ultra-nationalistic Russophobia. Tony Greenstein’s article in last week’s edition was a good example of this absurdity. It makes you wonder whether these leftists think Russia should just calmly sit back and take it all on the chin!

The question for leftists is not why Russia has carried out these actions - that much is obvious and understandable. The question for leftists is why the US empire and its client states have pushed Russia into this and what will it all mean?

I offer four primary reasons:

1. Economic: Protect the interests of its monopolies vis-à-vis China, Russia, etc. The west needs to act now or it might be too late. Overcome the barriers to capitalist accumulation, expansion of markets, competing over resources and territories. War is competition by other means.

2. Provide cover for the development of a more authoritarian model of bourgeois rule. Not only do the barriers to capitalist production necessitate firmer rule, but more importantly the cost of authoritarianism has drastically reduced, thanks to technological development. Therefore, authoritarianism at the imperialist core is now value for money and the benefits outweigh the costs - at least that is what they think.

3. Domestic repression: The barriers to capitalist production necessitate the immiseration of the middle class. The bourgeois at the imperialist centre have already squeezed the living daylights out of the working classes and underclass and now, having nearly exhausted the working classes, has no choice but to immiserate the middle classes. The first phase of this will be to actually try and protect their privileges, but at the same time they will undertake attacks on their savings, investments and pensions.

The best way to attack sections of society that are educated and have a certain economic power, but at the same time are patriotic, is to do it via a war with a foreign power. In other words, the imperialist centre is managing its relative decline - or desperately trying to prevent it - so that it protects the bourgeois and pushes the burden onto all other classes. It should be noted that the middle classes - for example, marketing managers, teachers, etc - are a net cost to capitalists at the aggregate level, even if for an individual capitalist enterprise they may be vital in winning market share, driving efficiencies etc.

4. Ideological: We have reached one of those points in history where ideas can dominate material existence. And the imperialist centre has descended into a demented liberalism, foaming at the mouth, witch-hunting in nature and generally hostile to any form of critical thinking. A demented ideology which demands every nation - no matter at what stage of economic development, no matter where it sits in the world market, no matter how much it is plundered, no matter what its history and culture - must adopt the tenets of its liberal ideology. This demented liberalism could very well drive the world into nuclear oblivion.

If my above reasons are correct, this is going to be one long struggle (I would argue that Nato is now at war with Russia, and by extension China), and we are in a new and truly horrifying age, yet one with interesting possibilities.

The staggering levels of sanctions imposed by the west on Russia clearly demonstrate who controls the global system, who wields the power and who are the imperialists. The defeat of imperialism is every bit as much a prerequisite for communism as was taking the means of production out of the hands of the producing classes critical for the development of capitalism.

Steve Cousins
email

Defend Russia

Tony Greenstein’s article on Russia and Ukraine is self-contradictory (‘Key issue is not Russia’, March 24). It gives all the good reasons why Russia is only defending itself, why Russia was lied to by Nato, how Nato provoked this conflict, how Nato behaved like “Perfidious Albion” and denounces, correctly, the “social chauvinist left”, who campaign to defeat so-called ‘Russian imperialism’, etc. Logically its arguments point to the obvious fact that Russia’s intervention is an act of self-defence against imperialism. Indeed it basically admits that, noting:

“It should therefore be clear that many of the British left, by touting the idea that what is involved is an inter-imperialist war, are really guilty of bowing before the ‘patriotic’ hysteria that is current. Instead of directing their fire at their own ruling class and its imperialist policies, they pretend that both parties are guilty. This has a name - social chauvinism.

“A cursory examination of the facts above makes it clear that Russia’s war on Ukraine is a defensive one, borne out of the fear of encirclement.”

It is quite correct that a key manifestation of such “social chauvinism” is the nonsensical position that this is an “inter-imperialist war”, and the equation of Russia’s defensive military action with that aggressive, 30-year, expansionist drive of US/Nato imperialism is the main manifestation of social imperialism.

But the main manifestation of that social imperialism is the call for the defeat of Russia, and in reality only Russia, in this war. Claims to oppose Nato expansion and all the rest of it by the likes of the Stop the War coalition are completely meaningless and platonic, since Nato expansion has already happened. The only real obstacle to Nato expansion into Ukraine is Russia’s military action to stop it. Those who call for Russia’s defeat are in the real world calling for a Nato victory. And let’s be very clear: the withdrawal of Russian troops without securing Russia’s military objectives of successfully defending and cementing in place the self-determination of the Donbas, safeguarding the Russian and Russophone population in general by destroying the Nazi presence, and forcing Ukraine to agree to shun Nato, would amount to a Russian defeat.

The article fails to draw the obvious conclusion that Russia’s act of self-defence must be defended by principled anti-imperialists. Indeed, it draws the opposite conclusion:

“It goes without saying that socialists unreservedly condemn Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, with the terrible devastation and suffering that they have inflicted. We should have no hesitation in calling for the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops.”

The ‘immediate withdrawal of Russian troops” would be a Russian defeat. So, in reality, despite his attacks on the ‘social chauvinists’, whose chauvinism means calling for a Russian defeat, Tony does the same thing and thus by his own definition is a social chauvinist himself. What makes his position even more untenable is that at the Socialist Labour Network meeting of February 28, he accepted part of an amendment from me to his motion, saying that “Russia does have the right to defend itself against Nato expansion”. I did not support his motion, even with that wording added, because it also contained the same ‘defeatist’ call for the “immediate withdrawal” of Russian troops.

Amazingly, within the same clause, the SLN motion which he ultimately presented called both for Russia’s (abstract) right to defend itself and (concretely) for its defeat, in the same clause! This kind of flaw is characteristic of left centrists. Tony fails to draw the logical conclusion of his own analysis - not for the first time.

It is worth noting that at that SLN meeting 3/8 of the membership voted for my amendment to Tony’s original motion, which deleted his call for a Russian withdrawal and clearly called for the defence of Russia in this conflict.

A principled approach to this question is manifested in the joint statement signed by both Trotskyist and ‘official’ communist groupings on the war (those who have not capitulated to Nato and third-campism, that is), including ourselves, that clearly lays out the basis for a genuinely anti-imperialist, anti-war movement, in which defence of Russia is the basic point that distinguishes us from the current so-called ‘anti-war movement’, which, because it calls for the defeat of Russia (also the main war aim of Nato imperialism), cannot really be said to be an anti-war movement at all.

Its headings alone point to the perspective of a genuine anti-war movement: “Victory to the anti-fascist forces of Donbas and their allies! US/Nato hands off Russia!” And it goes on:

“Modern capitalist Russia is not an imperialist country. It had no means to become one after the counterrevolution in the USSR. It is a regional power akin to India or Brazil, primarily an exporter of commodities, not capital. To maintain its independence, Russia had to ally with other countries in opposition to imperialism. Ukraine’s coup regime, by contrast, is a pawn of US imperialism that has been waging a brutal war on its neighbours for eight years and offered itself as a base for Nato aggression against Russia.

“Our responsibility is to stop US imperialism and its wars in all forms, and to stand in solidarity with those who fight against US domination” (iuafs.blogspot.com/2022/03/joint-statement.html).

That is the basis for a principled, anti-imperialist, anti-war movement. There is no other. The double talk and crystallised confusion of Tony’s perspective, that he claims is an alternative to the ‘social chauvinist left’, is no alternative at all, because it echoes its most basic capitulation. Actually, the key issue is defence of Russia - and of the Russia-speaking population of Ukraine, who are targets of Nato’s Nazis.

Ian Donovan
Consistent Democrats

Royal progress

I recently noticed one of the most revolting front pages I’ve seen on the Daily Mail - quite a high standard to reach. With a full-page picture we had: “Camilla’s tears for Ukraine” (March 2). She’s human! She’ll be a great queen!

The Mail, the government and the ‘palace’ are clearly preparing for succession and need the continuing love of the British people for their monarch, whoever it is. There must be some fear for the present incumbent - will she make it to ‘Platinum Day’? The handover must be smooth.

Meanwhile a royal tour seems to be having problems. When I was a lad a long time ago, the news on film for most of us was at the cinema and it always seemed to lead with the royal family. But now - problems? It would seem that not all of the queen’s ‘subjects’ are as keen on the monarchy as the Daily Mail.

In the Mail’s coverage of the royal tour (March 26) there were some passing comments on the disquiet from some quarters. Amanda Platell responded to talk of reparations with the comment, “Jolly good. I’m assuming the millions we have given them in aid count as a down payment …” (I don’t think I’ll get another copy of the Mail for a while).

But what of the news of the tour? There was a “Glorious 12-page picture souvenir”. It was titled “Kate Caribbean Queen” and had lots of pictures - mostly of her in long frocks with a big smile. What’s not to love?

Britain needs the monarchy! But keeping a firm grip on ideology can become very difficult at times.

Jim Nelson
email