A step from peace to war, or peace as a respite in permanent war
Very few people are capable of scientifically, adequately relating to military operations before the start of the cannonades. And in the course of the ensuing battles, attention is completely obsessed with private phenomena, tragic events, and superficial political fuss. Yes, and if you start the study of a fundamental problem from any arbitrarily chosen moment in history, then it is very difficult to come to the truth. Therefore, the majority stays in the darkness of «geopolitics,» «denazification,» «demilitarization,» «Putinism,» «de-Putinization,» and strained historical analogies either from the First World War or from the Soviet-Finnish one. Adjusting theoretical research to a conception deliberately proposed by the bourgeoisie of one side or another is the most impudent anti-Marxism and anti-science. If the essence of the phenomena lay on the surface, from where the conclusions of all the experts and analysts without exception come, then there would be no need for science.
Every war, just or not, liberation or predatory, revolutionary or counter-revolutionary, is predetermined by the laws of the economic basis of class society. Violence in general is an integral part of private property relations, and the state form of violence, that is, systemic, operational, professional, and concentrated coercion, is a qualitative component of the superstructure.
Not a single war in the world has been unleashed by monarchs, presidents and prime ministers themselves, although the role of the state creates the illusion that the exploiters are not directly involved in violence. The war is always and everywhere waged only by the ruling class, although the representatives of this class themselves may not understand how a howitzer differs from a cannon, and a tank from an infantry fighting vehicle. The independence of the top of the state apparatus from the will of the ruling class is relative, and the dependence is absolute. The policy of the state as a whole is a concentrated expression of relations generated by exploitative private property. Therefore, the victory in the war of one bourgeois state over another bourgeois state never leads to a change in the economic system, only superstructural elements, jurisdictions, political institutions, persons in power and detachments of the oligarchy change, and the redistribution of property–the main motive for the outbreak of hostilities.
The key to understanding the essence of armed conflicts is mentally fixing the moment when the peaceful development of capitalism enters the phase of clash of armies and navies, that is, the main institutions of state violence. Outwardly, it seems that there is a fundamental difference between the era of peaceful life and the period of warfare, that these are two completely opposite states of society. Bourgeois ideology and bourgeois theory of wars are filled with hypocritical pacifism and focus all attention on the moment of the outbreak of hostilities, on the validity, political expediency or inexpediency of the external side of the conflict. The conflicts between states themselves are considered as a product of the will of individual politicians, a clash of some abstract «national interests.»
However, if we consider the moment of transition from peace to war from a diamatic point of view, then we will see that hostilities become only a more radical means of resolving the contradictions of competition, which was, is, and will be, as long as private property dominates. Volleys of MLRS differ from exchange takeovers, duties, ousting from the market, and nationalizations only in the form and speed of the desired economic consequences.
Within the framework of a single country, competition between capitalists, with the exception of contract killings, proceeds in a relatively peaceful form and consistently leads to monopolization. But outside the national market, the growth of individual capital runs into the sovereignty of other states, which also have their own oligarchs, dreaming first of regional and then of world domination. Each class of capitalists not only has its own police force, but also its own national army, which guarantees all the necessary conditions for the existence of the given economic system and the economy which they consider to be their own patrimony.
“War is a necessary phase in the functioning of the capitalist economy, and the higher the concentration and centralization of capital, the higher its objective propensity to absorb the weakest capitals, its natural aggressiveness.” (Podguzov)
Capitalism is not constantly at war because war requires resources and forces that need to be accumulated and concentrated. Peace under capitalism, therefore, is only a natural stage in the preparation for war. If the capitalists had the opportunity to continuously wage war, they would do so. But since the waging of war depletes human resources, and the instruments of destruction are technologically more deadly and destructive, war under capitalism is periodic and seems to be something out of the ordinary.
War in the broad sense of the word under capitalism never stops, since it is one of the forms of objective economic relations between owners. But the difficulty of this perception of the war for the majority of ordinary citizens, the future victims of every war in the narrow sense of the word, is that open mass battles occur only from time to time, although they sometimes last for decades.
Consequently, when considering the moment of the onset of war, we have before us two phases of the same economic process of capital accumulation: commodity-money, or peaceful, and military, or violent. Their content is the same—the production relations of capitalism. That is why wars are a natural companion of capitalism and, in general, of all exploitative formations. In pre-capitalist private property formations, war appears in a more visual form as a means of concentrating slaves, peasants, and arable, ore-bearing, and logistically valuable land in the hands of magnates.
Moreover, the phase of open war gives capitalism a more dynamic way of concentrating capital, allows them to quickly get rid of «bubbles» and «imbalances» from superfluous, weak capitalists, and destroys a large number of material and virtual values. The human cost and suffering of war are as little of a concern to the capitalists as the poverty and unemployment of a peaceful period.
It is easy to see that where there is a self-expansion and concentration of capital in a peaceful period, there is an active accumulation of special means of warfare, in which almost all entrepreneurs are involved. And for the formation of a submissive consciousness of cannon fodder, all the forces of market arts, «Bologna systems,» nationalism, and religion are mobilized. War in the narrow sense of the word, as a series of battles, with its roar, the brilliance of thoughtless «heroism,» and tragedies overshadows, even in the minds of many theorists, war in the broad sense of the word, as a side of the capitalist formation as a whole.
“In the military-political, narrow sense, imperialist war is an extremely violent, immanent form of the policy of the bourgeois state, and at the level of a higher order, in the broad socio-economic sense, war is a violent form of economic relations, periodically and inevitably arising between exploiters over the appropriation, distribution, and redistribution of world material wealth.” (Podguzov)
War serves as a natural means of eliminating the discrepancy between the growth of productive forces, primarily in the idiotic form of capital accumulation on the one hand, and the division of spheres of influence for finance capital on the other. Take, for example, this Leninist truth:
“The epoch of the latest stage of capitalism shows us that certain relations between capitalist associations grow up, based on the economic division of the world; while parallel to and in connection with it, certain relations grow up between political alliances, between states, on the basis of the territorial division of the world, of the struggle for colonies, of the ‘struggle for spheres of influence.’”
Thus, between the capitalists of the West, primarily the USA, England, France, and Germany, certain relations have developed on the basis of the complete economic division of the world, which look like the hegemony and dictatorship of Western transnational corporations, from military-industrial conglomerates and oil and gas corporations to IT giants and «big pharma.” And next to this, in connection with this, an alliance of states has been established, including in the form of the NATO alliance, which suppresses the sovereignties of individual countries and resorts to the force of arms where necessary, or provokes wars through the hands of crazed nationalists.
As soon as the Soviet state was destroyed and the dictatorship of capital prevailed, all conditions were created for entrepreneurs, firstly, to tear the country to pieces, and secondly, to fall into general competition, that is, the war of all against all, creating many configurations between themselves and with their Western «partners,» thus setting fire to more and more «hot spots» on the territory of the USSR. The mass death of people and rampant fascism is the payment for the bungling shown by the people in 1991.
From a general theoretical approach to the specifics of a particular
On February 24, 2022, the bourgeois Russian Federation, represented by President Putin, announced a special military operation in Ukraine, referring to the NATO expansion policy and a number of other circumstances that led to the outbreak of hostilities. In essence, we are talking about the fact that one bourgeois state is openly interfering in a civil war in another bourgeois state on the side of the rebellious people of Donbass and the subsequently emerging bourgeois «people’s republics.»
Let us recall some conclusions about the situation in Ukraine that we made in 2019. So, we argued:
1. After 2014, a pro-Western group of oligarchs seized power in Ukraine, finally turning the Ukrainian state into a puppet, primarily of the American oligarchy. Ukraine, like Poland and the Baltic countries before, has become an outpost of US imperialism in Eastern Europe.
2. Power in the Russian Federation is in the hands of the oligarchy, that is, finance capital, and is guided solely by the interests of preserving state-monopoly capitalism in Russia and expanding its dominance outside. All the talk about the protection of the «Russian world» and multipolarism is a screen and a cover.
3. The civil war in Ukraine was unleashed by the Western oligarchy:
“Maidan, the annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation, the formation of the LDNR, and the civil war, with the complex and contradictory course of all these processes, are primarily a product of the policy of the American and European oligarchs. The Russian bourgeoisie in this case acted according to the situation, trying not to weaken its position in the face of the loss of influence in Kyiv.”
4. The participation of the bourgeois Russian Federation in the civil war in Ukraine through the so-called Minsk and Normandy formats, that is, in fact, only the temporary cessation of the conflict, was dictated by the political motives of countering American imperialism. The bourgeois Russian Federation, feeling its weakness, did not openly intervene in the civil war in Ukraine, but did not allow the Armed Forces of Ukraine to seize Donbass. Such participation of the Russian Federation was not of an imperialist nature, it was not aimed at seizing territories or reshaping spheres of influence. However, at the same time, we noted that quite possibly, the Russian oligarchy was hatching expansionist plans regarding Ukraine.
5. We pointed out that the principled position of Marxism in any such conflict is that the proletariat needs to turn its weapon against any bourgeoisie: Ukrainian, Russian, American, European, Donetsk, and Luhansk. But such a slogan in the current situation would be an empty shaking of the air, since there are no appropriate conditions for its application, and the most productive solution to the situation would be the defeat of the Ukrainian government in the civil war.
6. We predicted the three most likely scenarios that could lead to the end of the civil war: 1) if a communist revolution takes place in Russia, Ukraine, or Donbass; and the dictatorship of the working class resolves the issue peacefully or militarily; 2) if power in Ukraine passes into the hands of the pro-Russian oligarchy in Ukraine; 3) if the need arises for the Russian oligarchs to resolve the issue by military means.
However, since 2019, there has been a significant change in the international situation. The confrontation between world imperialism and China sharply escalated; the American oligarchy essentially unleashed a new cold war against the PRC, in which the bourgeois Russian Federation is a springboard on the path of encircling and isolating China. The pressure of American and European imperialism on the bourgeois Russian Federation has increased significantly in all directions, including through internal attacks on Belarus and attempts to provoke an “orange revolution” in Russia (poisoning Navalny and activating the liberal opposition.) There were many publications about this, in which we developed the idea that the world system of imperialism is on the verge of a new world war.
The behavior of the bourgeois Russian Federation in the changing environment was consistently mercantile and «business-as-usual.» First, proposals were made to Western imperialism, led by the United States, to voluntarily leave Eastern Europe, primarily Ukraine, that is, to recognize the sphere of influence of Russian finance capital, which would guarantee the neutrality of the Russian Federation in the confrontation between the United States and China. But after these proposals were ignored, the Russian Federation initiated a special operation in Ukraine on its own initiative.
There has clearly been a change in the strength of the potentials of the Russian and Western oligarchies, since the first time the conversation went on an equal footing. The degree of pressure from the US has also turned out to be critical for the Russian oligarchy. The military-political leadership of the Russian Federation, expressing the interests and needs of the Russian oligarchy, considered that further passive delay only worsened the situation of the country, and a “fight” was inevitable. It cannot be ruled out that the Armed Forces of Ukraine were really preparing a massive offensive against Donbass and even Crimea.
The outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine completed the period of preparation for the open struggle of American imperialism to preserve its hegemony and the world order that had taken shape after the collapse of the USSR. There was a sharp mobilization of Western countries, which all, as one, began to pump up the Ukrainian army with weapons, provide intelligence, and recruit mercenaries. In the domestic politics of Western countries, exactly the same rejection of bourgeois-democratic freedoms is taking place as that which was observed in the 1950s during the so-called era of McCarthyism.
In turn, the actions of the United States as an imperialist state are dictated by the tasks of maintaining the hegemony of American corporations and the business interests of all the main subjects belonging to the structural Anglo-Saxon system of the globalized economy, which, after the collapse of the USSR, stretched its tentacles around the globe. They can be conditionally divided into two sides–political and economic.
The political side is the unleashing of a new cold war against China, in which the Russian Federation has an important foothold on the outskirts of the PRC. In it, economic benefits appear indirectly through competition with Chinese state capital, and, of course, there is a moment of fear of communism and the socialist state as such. The dynamics of modern China’s development clearly demonstrate the high efficiency of communist power even in a market economy.
The economic side of the actions of American imperialism is associated with direct benefits from specific decisions, for example, in the form of enrichment of the private military-industrial complex from the supply of arms and the arms race in general, oil and gas giants from the redistribution of the European gas market, and the ruin of the masses of small owners, etc.
The same is true for the position of the imperialists of France and Germany, except that it includes the balancing act in relations between the monopolists of these countries and their American «colleagues,» that is, in this case they directly and openly support the United States in the confrontation with the Russian Federation, but are somewhat indecisive, not wanting a direct confrontation with China. The inter-imperialist contradictions between the US and the EU are also growing, as the US oligarchs directly use Europe in their own interests, regardless of the economic and social damage to the power of their «partners.»
The complexity of the moment has shown the left’s theoretical helplessness
The beginning of the Russian special operation in Ukraine was an event in which left-wing figures and organizations differed in their assessments. The special operation did not only cause a split of the left into supporters and opponents of the war, but also transferred the entire theoretical assessment of the situation to the plane of purely external phenomena. Some leftists go with Putin and Russian imperialism; other leftists go with Zelensky, Biden, and American imperialism. Much of the discussion revolves around Ukrainian fascist gangs and the role of NATO countries in the conflict. However, almost no one reveals the role of capitalism proper in the war.
None of the left dared to reason from the general to the particular. So, all entrepreneurs are competitors, and they are much more internationalist than proletarians. They do not need to be called to internationalism; they themselves are always looking for combinations on the side. No wonder some Russian oligarchs kept their money abroad, they are always for any war, but on the side of the potential, as it seems to them, winner. On the other hand, the Russian Federation is full of entrepreneurs who have nothing to look for over the «hill,» but they never pay attention to race, nationality, or religious affiliation. Periodically, political leaders appear on the scene expressing the aspirations of some groups of capitalists, not only large ones, but also small ones, sometimes comprador, and sometimes nationalist, but this changes little in the overall picture. So all wars in general are carried out exclusively by the bourgeoisie, regardless of what nation they belong to, what country they live in, and in what combination they entered the war, but the state and the army always become the scapegoat. However, if there were no entrepreneurs, there would be no competition between them, there would be no bourgeois parties and presidents reflecting the interests of groups of entrepreneurs, large and small, strong and weak, warring for life and death.
Therefore, whatever the specifics, no matter how significant the nuances of a particular military campaign may seem, while the masses of the inhabitants are under the influence of political chatter, militarism, state policy, or the role of presidents and field commanders, they are immersed in an attempt to embrace all these nuances in the process of searching for personal culprits, but none of this threatens capitalism itself. The modern left considers the topic of capitalism in war so sluggishly and poorly that they cannot direct the hatred and contempt among the mass of citizens to capitalism as the source of all wars. The fact that today there are borders, countries, governments, political systems, and figures–all this is secondary, inherited by the earthly community as remnants of slavery, feudalism, and clerical fragmentation. That’s what’s important.
We are not opposed to identifying specific nuances and the role of superstructural institutions, but only after our readers begin to see clearly that all wars are prepared and unleashed by ordinary entrepreneurs, including the smallest ones.
This position is dictated both by the general considerations of propagating the theory of Marxism, and by the fact that the most we can do in fact is to formulate a scientifically sound point of view on current events while we are unable to exert a practical influence on it. If our point of view is scientific, then this is what will eventually work and give rise to a constructive practical reaction from the masses and their left-wing leaders.
For a more detailed consideration of the position of opponents of the special operation of the Russian Federation, we will resort to a joint statement by the Communist Parties of Greece, Spain, Mexico, and Turkey, which, in its theoretical content, covers almost all the arguments of the left. Thus, fairly large and respected communist parties claim that the Russian-Ukrainian war is an imperialist war between the US, NATO, and the EU on the one hand, and the Russian Federation on the other, in the struggle for control over the markets, raw materials, and transport networks of Ukraine. A similar risk of wars is present in other regions, as the confrontation between the US and China for supremacy in the capitalist world intensifies. The anti-fascist rhetoric of the Russian Federation is recognized by them as false, designed to disorient the workers.
What specific outcome of the special operation of the Russian Federation is seen by the data of the Communist Party as the most acceptable for the cause of communism is unclear. They are simply against imperialist wars, that is, they take the position of abstract pacifism. It is clear that the statement «no war» in the current circumstances means actual support for the military defeat of the Russian Federation.
It is difficult to call such a position anything other than schoolboy; it is the product of some compromise between organizations that do not want to substantively understand the situation. And again, in their criticism there was no place for capitalism proper. The origins of the conflict are not considered in connection with the collapse of the USSR and its transition from communism to capitalism. It looks especially obscene, equating American and Russian imperialisms and equating American imperialism and the socialist PRC, which again only plays into the hands of maintaining the hegemony of the Western oligarchy. The confusion that these communist parties have created is further delaying the task of bringing the Marxist worldview to the masses.
At least now there are a number of socialist states in the world (China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos,) and communists are obliged to consider all international political processes through the prism of the needs of their existence and development. They oppose world imperialism, and in this class struggle we must firmly take the side of the forces of communism. The fact that some leftists do not like “Marxism with Chinese characteristics” or Juche, that, in their opinion, the socialist governments in these countries are not correct enough, and that their policy is opportunistic, is a manifestation of dogmatism and Trotskyism. We have the right to form our opinion in the field of the theory and practice of communism in these countries, but it should not run counter to their support. It is not for us to teach Chinese, North Korean, Vietnamese, Cuban and Laotian communists, and certainly not the Greek, Spanish, Mexican, and Turkish left.
In addition, there are a number of states of socialist orientation (Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Nepal, Syria, Eritrea, Belarus, Transnistria) where there are national liberation struggles of different peoples. Of course, communists are sympathetic to all anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist processes and are obliged to take them into account when evaluating certain political events and phenomena, especially global ones of international significance.
But all this has been forgotten by the left and sacrificed to «Marxist» dogmatism and «revolutionary» posturing. Such theoretical assessments cause nothing but regret.
Important nuances in assessing the situation
The first important nuance in assessing the situation is that the basis of imperialism corresponds to the superstructure of imperialism, the ideology of which is fascism.
“The highest stage of the development of capitalism, i.e. imperialism, also corresponds to the highest, i.e., the ultimate ideology in its genocidogenicity, which is the subjective prerequisite for the withering away of market capitalist relations, since private monopoly property has exhausted its possibilities for ideological maneuver and for generating theories masking the reactionary essence of exploitative formations. The bourgeoisie of every nation is forced to openly admit that under the dominance of monopolies, those who want to continue the growth of the profitability of their capital have no other way to do this than to smash their competitors on a global scale. Free-trading, fascism, and globalization differ somewhat in the terms used, but are synonymous in terms of the ultimate goals of the policy of establishing world domination of one ethnic group of financial capital tycoons.” (Podguzov)
The cumulative strength of imperialism of one or another group of oligarchs and the states controlled by it is proportional to the degree of its reactionary character. Unlike the era of the First World War, the contradictions of modern imperialism are not a struggle between two blocs of equal potential. The world market is already under the control of US imperialism, and the oligarchies of other nations are trying to free themselves from the dictates of Washington. That is, we already live in a world of victorious American fascism, even if its terminological flair revolves around the doctrines of neoliberalism and globalization. The situation with political regimes in Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland, Taiwan, Japan, Kosovo and the like shows how easily American democracy on the ground turns into nationalism and support for openly fascist gangs when it is beneficial to Washington’s patrons.
Further, American imperialism (USA, England, Canada, Australia, Israel, Japan, Poland, the Baltic States and other openly pro-American regimes) is not equal to EU (France, Germany,) Turkish, Indian, or Russian imperialism. American imperialism treats the others as the strong treat the weak; they block, compete, and enter into open confrontations at the regional level.
Consequently, fascism as an ideology and practice of the desire of the financial capital of one nation for world domination is inherent in all bourgeois countries, but to varying degrees, depending on the strength and correlation of the potentials of the bourgeois classes ruling in them. Countries in which national capital, due to their size and total subordination to the world market, is not able to reach the level of financial monopolization, become arenas for the struggle of foreign financial capital and fall into political dependence.
Thus, Ukrainian fascism–Banderism- with all its gangs, nationalism, and terror is an element of the superstructure not of Ukrainian capitalism, but of American imperialism. Ukrainian oligarchs are not capable of claiming world domination, but are a mere rump of American corporations, typical compradors, who are allowed to exist and enrich themselves for the time being.
The second important nuance in assessing the situation is the understanding of the objective nature of the inter-imperialist class struggle that follows from what has been said above. The fact that American imperialism = fascism does not imply unconditional approval of the fight against it, because it is also carried out by an imperialist force, albeit a weaker and less reactionary one in this context.
Communists treat the war in Ukraine as an objective reality of capitalism. As already mentioned, capitalism is generally a war of all against all, and concrete military operations are only an undisguised, frank form of this war. That is, in the conditions of capitalism, war is something like a natural disaster; it is inevitable, because such is the very basis of capitalism, which permanently gives rise to military conflicts here and there.
Fascism in the United States and the West as a whole is a superstructure that serves the imperialist basis. The struggle of the bourgeois Russian Federation for spheres of influence with the West is a squabble between two imperialists, which, strictly speaking, does not bother the proletariat, since the weakening of one leads to the strengthening of the other with all the ensuing consequences in the superstructure.
The bulk of people with a petty-bourgeois consciousness are fixated on Putin, on his personal role in the war, or, at best, on the fact that it is not Ukraine that is at war with the Russian Federation, but NATO countries. Entrepreneurs of the Russian Federation are mastering Crimea perfectly and will not “choke” on the territories of the LDNR and Ukraine if the war ends in their victory. Yes, and the Polish capitalists will also gladly send their troops to Galicia in order to enthusiastically develop the Lviv region.
The current war in Ukraine was initiated by the presidents, but first of all by the American ones, as in Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria… at the behest of the most aggressive detachment of the business class. Until 2014, there was not a single sign, not a single thesis was voiced that Putin personally, or even more so the Russian Federation, have territorial claims against Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Baltic states, or Ukraine. On the contrary, appeals were systematically sounded: guys, let’s live together in the CIS and the CSTO. But the territorial claims against the market RF on the part of the listed states for the sake of obtaining loans from the USA and the EU have not stopped since 1991, although the Russian Federation bought equipment, for example, in Ukraine, paid for the transit of oil and gas, for renting the Sevastopol Bay at world prices, and Poroshenko’s factory worked quietly in Lipetsk. The population of Ukraine had no objective reasons for inflating nationalism and fascist hysteria. This means that it was inflated in the interests of the United States for the billions of dollars that they invested in the politics of Ukrainian presidents and the insanity of the masses over several years.
Although now, in comparison with Ukraine and the West, the regime of the Russian Federation is softer and more loyal, nevertheless, the imperialist basis guarantees that as the power of the Russian oligarchy grows, the mug of the same fascism will more and more clearly manifest itself. The Russian and Ukrainian proletarians, having fought and drunk the cup of military suffering, must understand that capital is the force that drove them into the trenches. Groups of financial capital are playing «table monopoly» with the lives of ordinary proletarians of different nations.
However, in the struggle of any forces against the dominant American imperialism (even in the weathervane of the oligarchy of France, Germany, Turkey, India, the opposition of the Ayatollah regime of Iran and the armed struggle of the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis) there is a progressive moment. The weakening of US and NATO hegemony plays into the hands of the socialist states, countries of a socialist orientation, and all anti-imperialist forces in different regions. The loss of hegemony by the US oligarchs creates a more favorable configuration in the world. In this connection, and only in this connection, one can speak of a sympathetic attitude towards «anti-Americanism,» as well as towards those internal political processes in Western countries that undermine the potential of American and, in some cases, European imperialism.
The third important nuance in assessing the situation is the practical implementation of the thesis of Marxism about supporting any just struggle of the people, because the struggling people learn more willingly and better in the course of such a struggle, including about communism. The struggle of the people of Donbass to be independent or even part of the bourgeois Russian Federation, and not the Banderite Ukraine, is just and liberating. It demands our unconditional sympathy.
As for the position of the Khersonians or the Cossacks, it is difficult to say something definite at the moment, therefore, the inclusion of Zaporozhye and Kherson in the Russian Federation should be treated simply as a political fact. In any case, firstly, there are no signs that the population of Ukraine perceives the war as domestic, and secondly, they are somewhat loyal to both the pro-American regime in Kiev and the Russian bourgeois authorities. Marxism teaches that all countries which operate on a market basis and with a market ideology tend to collapse and redistribute borders.
The fourth important nuance in assessing the situation is the unconditionally positive attitude of the communists to the physical extermination of ordinary fascists by the armies of the Russian Federation and the LDNR. These are incorrigible subjects who will be the first to rise in armed struggle against communism and the first to unleash terror against the working class. The righteous anger of the people regarding the crimes of fascist gangs in Ukraine is worthy of all support.
At the same time, when Russian nationalists and chauvinists die in the ranks of the «allies» who took up arms to build the «Russian world,» it is also difficult to perceive it as something other than the cleansing of our people from rot.
The fifth important nuance in assessing the situation is the presence of nostalgic-emotional references by Russian and DPR fighters to the USSR and a request for social justice as a motive for conducting hostilities. This creates favorable conditions for the propaganda of communism and the introduction of Marxist consciousness into the masses both at the front and in the rear. The tactical task of our propaganda is to transfer attention from the external form, from emotional attitude, to the essence of political processes.
Summing up, the following should be noted.
Firstly, the reasons for the emergence of this particular war, which rather resembles a kind of national liberation movement from the pro-fascist and pro-American regime, must be attributed to the entire hundred years of the immediate history of the class struggle after the end of the civil war in Soviet Russia.
Secondly, the answer to the question of whether the current war is purely imperialist in nature must be sought not through historical analogies, but diamatically.
Communists in their work for scientific and theoretical authority among the proletarians of mental and physical labor must be able to demonstrate a diamatic approach to the study of events and, from the standpoint of the essence, “dissect” them in all “colors and paints”, shades and halftones, and not demonstrate a schematic r-r-revolutionary, as many leftist Kisa Vorobyaninovs do today. We fully approve only the struggle of the people of Donbass against American fascism and local Bandera and are not going to in any way interfere with the leadership of the Russian Federation to provide them with comprehensive assistance.
Classical imperialist wars, as they were recorded by the classics, had practically no subtexts–the imperialists openly fought for the redistribution of colonial possessions: the US war with Spain, World War I, World War II until 1941. But even the Second World War cannot be called unambiguously imperialist, if we keep in mind its transformation in 1941. In those wars before 1941, dumb Western cannon fodder did what the oligarchs told them to do.
If we talk about the fact that two similar market systems entered into an armed conflict in Ukraine, in which the main role is played by national big capital, the oligarchs, then yes, this war has a lot of imperialist features. From the point of view of official statements, the leadership of the Russian Federation tried to implement the Minsk agreements, according to which Ukraine retained the sovereignty and territory of the LDNR (that is, it lost only Crimea). But this was not part of the US plans. On the part of US billionaires and democrats, this war is indeed unequivocally imperialistic, and if during it the Ukrainian and the entire European economy collapses as a result of sanctions or the explosion of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, then this will be an acceptable outcome for the US oligarchs.
The policy pursued by the current leadership of the Russian Federation in relation to, for example, South Ossetia, Abkhazia or Syria, proves that the Putin government does not intend to pursue a policy that is anything like the bloody predatory tyranny of England, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium towards their colonies or US policy towards North Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
And if we proceed from the fact of the abundance of cases of demonstrations of red banners by the warring contingent of the LDNR, the mindset of the masses, it is clear that people perceive hostilities somewhat differently than they did at the beginning of the 20th century. Although in the First World War the Russian soldier seemed to go to war with the Germans with understanding in order to protect the brothers of the Serbs, nevertheless, until 1917, there was no talk in the trenches about any red banner or about turning the imperialist war into a civil war. And in our case, for eight years, the people of Donbass waged a struggle of a predominantly national liberation nature with minimal material and moral support from the bourgeois Russian Federation, however, with mysterious losses among the leaders of the LDNR of the left and leftist persuasion–which also fully fits into the laws of the class struggle.
1) war is a product of capitalism, it is the natural and organic policy of the entrepreneurial class—the objective reality of capitalism and the counter-revolutionary destruction of the USSR;
2) the Ukrainian conflict on the part of the West is purely imperialistic in nature;
3) the imperialism of the Russian Federation is also present, but so far limited by the specifics of the Bonapartist regime;
4) the struggle of the people of Donbass is just, and the collapse of the Kyiv regime and the weakening of US imperialism in the region are progressive.
If we examine the line of conduct of the CCP and the WPK in relation to the Ukrainian conflict, then it is generally consistent with these conclusions.
 Ippolit Matveyevich Vorobyaninov, nicknamed Kitty, is a character in the novel «Twelve Chairs» and the story «The Past of the Registrar of the Registry Office» by Ilya Ilf and Evgeny Petrov.