Controversy with the Partido Obrero (Workers’ Party) of Argentina
By Mariano Rosa – MST in the FIT-Unity
About the only rather obvious point in common with PO on the situation in Ukraine is that it is a process that divides waters on the global left-wing. From there, we have different views on the nature of the conflict, the character of Russia and by default, the policy of revolutionary socialists for the region. On our part, we polemicize, starting from the international elaboration of the LIS, with militant implantation in Ukraine through workers leaders of independent unions and the Ukrainian Socialist League.
The position of the Workers Party on this issue has the following points to highlight, for us they are absolutely wrong and they slip towards a semi-campist position of support for Putin, objectively:
– It categorizes the war in Ukraine as inter-imperialist. This means that Russia as a power attacks Ukraine, which ultimately “is” NATO.
– It denounces, therefore, first of all, NATO, not Putin and his invasion.
– It characterizes Putin as a “restorationist bureaucrat” and not as a bourgeois and imperialist government.
– From all the above, the task for the Ukrainian masses would be to fight for the military defeat of Ukraine, ergo, the military triumph of Putin.
The four statements seem to us erroneous, and effectively have as a result a position that, in fact, embellishes Putin in front of NATO, instead of building from the immediate needs of the Ukrainian masses a position independent of any imperialist or bourgeois field. That is to say: a third socialist, revolutionary, working class and internationalist position.
Imperialist Ukraine? The starting point of a revolutionary policy.
Of course: the definition of the character of the ongoing war is decisive for the location of revolutionaries. The PO insists on defining that Ukraine from 2014 onwards, after the Euromaidan, which the PO characterizes as a “coup”, all that came was the consummation of a kind of NATO protectorate and that, ultimately, Ukraine as a country and its government, are NATO. In reality there is a palette of important nuances to concretely define a given situation.It is logical that, from a distance (Argentina), and without having a working class and militant implantation in the area, a national force can fall into unilateralism. But the reality is that Ukraine is a semi-colony (it was already so in 2014 with Yanukovich, whom the PO in fact presents as “progressive”), and its government is pro-imperialist and bourgeois, of a (I repeat) semi-colonial country. Therefore, the nature of the Russian invasion, as an imperialist country (in another article this aspect is explained), is the aggression of a stronger capitalist country with expansionist-imperialist aspirations, on a semi-colonial country in conditions of inferiority. Without starting from this point, the whole policy is distorted and there is no chance for revolutionary socialists to dialogue with the Ukrainian masses. We are not facing an academic or abstract debate without practical consequences. For the working class and poor masses of Ukraine, the Russian bombs and armored vehicles are very concrete, the civilian casualties are very concrete and therefore, if the starting point is not to take their side in supporting the rejection of Putin’s invasion, frankly there is nothing more to talk about. In fact, if it is not that position, then the contrary would be to promote the triumph of the imperialist invasion which would come to mean a “lesser evil” in the face of NATO. This is directly absurd for the direct experience of the Ukrainian working people. Indeed, Zelensky’s role in the conflict, to stay behind and boast as a great “national leader”, causes great confusion among the Ukrainian people. But, in order to better fight it, hard and from now on, the first thing is to start from the rejection of the invasion, for the withdrawal of the Russian troops.
It is not easy to imagine our Ukrainian comrades, at the front of anti-missile shelters in Kyiv, explaining that in reality it is not the Russian tanks that are the immediate danger, but NATO, which on the other hand has no military bases in Ukraine, nor does it want to intervene militarily, but supports a pro-imperialist government as in many countries of the world. Therefore, the PO’s position in Ukraine means, plain and simple, being pro-Putin.
With the Ukrainian masses, against the imperialist invasion and denouncing NATO.
What is challenging, difficult, but essential for militant internationalism, is to build an independent position from all the imperialist and bourgeois factions that intervene. This, of course, starting from the immediate needs of the working class and the poor people of the attacked country. And at the same time, of course, it is a question of raising that position without any confidence in the Zelensky government, much less in NATO, in regards to which it is only possible to demand the full withdrawal from Eastern Europe.
However, the call for “revolutionary defeatism”, which would be the PO line for Ukraine, supposes to fight (in this politics has consequences), for Putin’s triumph. Then: does Putin’s victory put the Ukrainian mass movement in better conditions to fight against NATO and for an independent class solution? What would be the progressive benefits of a subjugation to Russia? In reality, the Ukrainian people today are not fighting for the NATO government in their country, their immediate enemy is another imperialism: Russian imperialism, on the other hand, historical as a gravitating factor in their “living space” (from Tsarism, passing through Stalin, until today). Therefore, to be the best militants to achieve the withdrawal of the Russian troops, as an aspiration and immediate-concrete necessity of the masses of Ukraine, puts the socialists in a better position of authority to deploy the whole transitional program for the region: against NATO, for the self-determination of the regions of the southeast of the country (without Putin’s troops, nor NATO’s), and to fight for a workers government and a federation of socialist and democratic republics of the whole East.
The ISL in the conflict, the ISL in the world
From minute zero, indeed from before the start of the invasion, the International Socialist League developed a comprehensive policy that responded to all the ongoing debates:
– Putin’s threat
– The pro-NATO character of the Zelensky government
– The hypocritical role of NATO, facilitator of Putin’s offensive.
– The conflict with the southeastern regions of the country.
Our call, from the beginning, is to set up an international movement that rejects the invasion, to support the people of Ukraine, to unmask NATO and to raise an independent, revolutionary and internationalist position… We are proud to have brave workers’ and militant leaders in Ukraine, in Belarus and in Russia, who raise on both sides of the national borders the same banners of militant internationalism. Our comrades in Belarus were in the front line of the rebellion against Lukashenko, in whose savage repression Putin collaborated. In Russia, ISL activism promotes protests against its own imperialist government, even suffering imprisonment for that consistency. And all over the world we promote united actions at embassies and consulates, promoting in unions, student centers and social movements the mobilization for these causes. This is the concrete sense of internationalism that we practice from the ISL, and the MST, its Argentine section.