![portada bdi](https://lis-isl.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/portada-bdi-678x381.jpg)
By Rubén Tzanoff, SOL Spanish State
The war in Ukraine has motivated different positions around the world. The ISL has responded in a principled way, with declarations that prioritize agreements over nuances. Even so, differences in the political characterization and orientation have emerged in the IEC, focused on comrade V.U. Arslan, who represents the Turkish SEP. This should not be a problem, it is compatible with the ISL’s project, provided that an organic channel is used to develop the debates. Along these lines, comrade Alejandro Bodart sent each member of the IEC the text “A contribution on the war and the debates on the left,” so that we all had the opportunity to express our opinion on the matter. After the IEC, the contribution that had been presented organically was published on the ISL website. In the IEC session, comrade Arslan did not question Bodart’s contribution and even explicitly minimized the differences arising from the debate. However, afterwards, he published an article in direct polemic, with first and last name, with Alejandro Bodart’s contribution, when he should have channeled the differences, as has been done on other occasions, via the International Debate Bulletin. We hope that comrade Arslan reconsiders this and channels his differences through the IDB and the organization’s international bodies, so that a democratic, fraternal exchange of opinions can take place, while we continue to intervene in the class struggle in unity.
A valuable contribution by comrade Alejandro Bodart
Some of us have had a presence in Eastern Europe for two decades. We regularly participate in meetings with labor leaders. We have recently carried out an intense solidarity campaign with the Ukrainian resistance and of financial support for the Zahist Pratsi Independent Union. And we made a trip to Kyiv in the middle of the war, from which comrade Bodart’s contribution arose. At the IEC I expressed my support for Alejandro’s text, which I now reaffirm. It has served to politicize the internal debate and reach vanguard sectors in different countries. With this general framework, I will refer to some of the positions expressed by comrade Arslan in his article “How to Position Ukrainian War? Some Mistakes…”
He erases with his elbow what he writes with his hand
From the start, the comrade states: “For this, first of all, it is necessary to understand the dual character of the war in Ukraine. On the one hand, Russia, an imperialist force, occupies the territory of a sovereign state; on the other hand, there is a reckoning between imperialists in Ukraine.” This is a correct statement that is found in the foundations of ISL statements since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Comrade Arslan writes this analysis with his hand, but then erases it with his elbow in the politics we proposed, which are contradictory and have strong propagandist elements.
What moment is the war currently in?
Comrade Arslan writes: “the US and the NATO Bloc as a whole support Ukraine in every aspect, except for joining the war…” He then reaffirms: “the US and the NATO Bloc as a whole support Ukraine in every aspect, except for joining the war… Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a continuation of this proxy war. In addition, the US and NATO intervene in the war in every sense, except leading their armies to the conflict.” The underlinings are mine and in this case are indicative. The article recognizes that at this time there is no world war. However, it’s a half recognition, since, as we will see, it then develops policies as if a world war did already exist.
The “excepts,” which are synonymous with “they have not started a world war,” are no minor detail: if they changed, there would be a qualitative jump. That is to say, the istuation would change from a war in Ukraine to a new world conflagration. So far, the main actors are taking precautions not to cross the line: Putin has not attacked NATO countries, Western imperialism is rearming and supporting Ukraine, but it is trying not to provoke Putin to the extreme with a direct intervention of its troops. Even so, the crisis of the world capitalist economy, the inter-imperialist friction and the very dynamic of events make it impossible to rule out a generalized confrontation. If this qualitative change materializes, the politics of the revolutionaries will have to adjust. Since this has not yet happened, a fundamental part of politics is still supporting the oppressed country -Ukraine- against the imperialist oppressor country -Russia, in addition to expressing our position for the dissolution of NATO, against Western imperialism and all imperialisms in dispute. Any policy that, in a situation like the current one, is hesitant in supporting the Ukrainian resistance will flirt with abstentionism or defeatism, and will therefore benefit the Russian invasion.
He overestimates the US and Ukraine and downplays Russia
About the United States, the article states: “The United States, which has made its own war through Ukraine and mobilized NATO in this direction, is still a global power at the top of the imperialist hierarchy.” Said like this, it seems the description of US imperialism in its heyday. The North Americans are still the most important imperialist power, but they are no longer hegemonic as they used to be. This is due to the crises of the capitalist economy, its internal decline and the fact that they no longer have Stalinism, the partner of Yalta and Potsdam with whom they divided the control of the world. They have lost leadership in entire regions of the planet and, though they aspire to recover and expand it, it will not be easy for them in the context of the emergence of new imperialisms and the growing and just rejection they face across the world.
Regarding Ukraine, the article says: “As a matter of fact, the Ukrainian army dealt heavy blows to Russia with sophisticated weapons from NATO. In the first part of the war, Russia suffered a strategic defeat and had to leave Kyiv and its northern regions.” There is an amalgam of half-truths and errors here that must be analyzed. It is true that the Ukrainian army receives Western weapons and has dealt blows to the Russian army. But is this a result only of the weapons? Not a word is mentioned about the Ukrainian popular resistance, about the territorial defense battalions in which the workers and the people participate. There is no mention of the mobilizations in occupied territories, even those of Russian-speaking majority. Only the weapons, which according to specialists and imperialism itself are not the ones that can determine the war in favor of Ukraine, are mentioned. For Comrade Arslan, it is as if the workers and the people resisting in a just war did not exist. Could it be that he has been influenced by Russian propaganda about a far-right people that must be “denazified?”
A “strategic Russian defeat” is defined, but what has happened is the failure of the “blitzkrieg operation” to take Kyiv in a few days and install a puppet government. It is a tactical Russian defeat, an important, but tactical one. A strategic defeat would imply the surrender and withdrawal of its troops from Ukrainian territory, something that has not happened. On the contrary, the reorganization focused on Donbas is producing Russian advances, in a Stalinist style, with failures and casualties, but advances at last, which goes in the opposite direction of a “strategic defeat.”
Regarding the characterization of Russia, the article states that it “is a regional force in the 3rd category in the imperialist hierarchy.” If this were so, it would not explain how it continues to be hegemonic in Eastern Europe, as the article itself states. It is true that Russia is not at the level of the US or China in economic development and global presence. Although it is a mistake to minimize its economy: Western sanctions weakened its finances but failed to collapse it, exports continue to flow to key countries such as India and China, support and trade with the BRICs and many African countries is still active. On a military level, it has one of the best armed and equipped imperialist armies. Even specifying these characterizations and accepting that Russia was a “3rd category” imperialist, it would continue to be an oppressive power attacking a dependent and oppressed semi-colonial country, reasons for which revolutionaries must be in the trench of the oppressed.
Comrade Arslan advises: “minimizing the forces Ukraine which has the support of the superpower, while exaggerating Russia’s capacity will not contribute to a revolutionary analysis.”. Unfortunately, he does the opposite, since, to justify his positions, he zooms in or out on countries at his convenience, resulting in a weak Russia and a strong Ukraine, exactly the opposite of reality.
Is Ukraine waging a just war or not?
The latest ISL declaration, dated April 13, 2022 and voted unanimously by the Executive Committee, states with total clarity in its point 3: “Support the resistance of the Ukrainian people and their right to defend themselves from the brutal Russian aggression with all means at their disposal.” The right to defend itself stems precisely from the nature of the war that Ukraine is waging, which is a just war. In this sense, it is worth quoting Lenin: “By “defensive” war Socialists always meant a “just” war in this sense (W. Liebknecht once expressed himself precisely in this way). Only in this sense have Socialists regarded, and now regard, wars “for the defence of the fatherland,” or “defensive” wars, as legitimate, progressive and just. For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be “just,” “defensive” wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory “great” powers.” (Lenin; Socialism and War, July-August 1915).
Comrade Arslan made one of the components of the dual character of the war disappear from his article: the liberation of Ukraine. It is a matter of the utmost importance because if it is a just war of resistance, it must be supported in order for it to succeed. If you are not clearly in favor of Ukraine’s victory, then you are in favor of Russia’s victory; there are no half measures.
To deploy a correct policy towards a process of mobilization or a war, the first requirement is to determine whether it is a just cause that must be supported or not and, from there, analyze the contradictions and complexities that arise, which must be answered with an appropriate program. The logic that comrade Arslan employs skips the first basic requirement, so he plunges directly into the contradictions and complexities, from which a confusing policy emerges. How should we vie for leadership in just processes in which nationalists intervene? Or should we not intervene in them, and leave the nationalists’ hands free to act on the mass movement? What policy should be applied if the working people of a country whose government tributes to campism mobilizes, for example, in China or Cuba? Not intervene or not support the claims because the pro-imperialists will be in the dispute? Or begin by determining if they are just claims, support them and fight the nationalist, pro-imperialist or reactionary organizations with a principled policy?
In Russia one policy, in the West another
Comrade Arslan asserts that Alejandro’s phrase, “the revolutionaries need to work for the defeat of Russia in the war with all forces” would mean “a dangerous approach to the NATO line.” It is an unfortunate statement, because our policy poses as its axes the support for the Ukrainian resistance against Putin’s imperialist invasion and the rejection of NATO and Western imperialism. We not only propose that NATO leave Eastern Europe but also the dissolution of that criminal organization. In comrade Bodart’s contribution there is no alignment with NATO, but rather the coherent development of the war’s dual nature, in which the rejection of NATO and Western imperialism is a fundamental pillar. Comrade Arslan insists: “For the revolutionaries in Russia, the discourse of “Russia’s defeatism” is a revolutionary attitude, but the “defeat of Russia” policy in the West means collaborationism, because it means becoming partners with our own imperialist ruling class.”
Taking these statements to the terrain of the political framework, this would imply that an international organization like ours with national sections in Russia, Ukraine and other Western countries should give its cadres and militants the following line: “Russian comrades, call to mobilize against the Putin’s war of invasion, but do not count on the support of our class brothers and comrades of our parties in the West. They will not be committed to promoting the defeat of the Russian invader, they will only reject NATO.”
What we would have to tell our comrades in Ukraine is worse: “Ukrainian comrades, we support the resistance that you are carrying out against the invasion. However, except in Russia, in the rest of the world we don’t want you to win the war. In the West we fight for the defeat of NATO, not for the defeat of Russia. Long live Ukraine’s self-determination.”
In the line of combat, such an orientation would give rise to the “mad soldier” who shoots in all directions, both at the invaders and the invaded, at the oppressors and the oppressed. An international cannot be built with two or three policies for the same phenomenon, according to the geographical location of the revolutionary organizations. Of course, tactical adaptations are important and correct, as long as they are part of a single policy, not different policies. Comrade Arslan’s policy for the West is close to defeatism or abstentionism, which would have weight if a new world war had broken out, something that has not yet happened.
Comrade Arslan writes that in the West the defeat of Russia should not be raised. Although it is not written explicitly in the article, the consistent development of this policy would imply calling for a boycott of the shipment of weapons to the Ukrainian resistance. This is what some currents do, even maintaining that they are neither with Putin nor with NATO. What is Comrade Arslan’s opinion on this? For now, it is useful to transcribe a quote from Trotsky: “Let us assume that rebellion breaks out tomorrow in the French colony of Algeria under the banner of national independence and that the Italian government, motivated by its own imperialist interests, prepares to send weapons to the rebels. What should the attitude of the Italian workers be in this case? I have purposely taken an example of rebellion against a democratic imperialism with intervention on the side of the rebels from a fascist imperialism. Should the Italian workers prevent the shipping of arms to the Algerians? Let any ultra-leftists dare answer this question in the affirmative. Every revolutionist, together with the Italian workers and the rebellious Algerians, would spurn such an answer with indignation. Even if a general maritime strike broke out in fascist Italy at the same time, even in this case the strikers should make an exception in favor of those ships carrying aid to the colonial slaves in revolt; otherwise they would be no more than wretched trade unionists – not proletarian revolutionists.” (Learn to Think. A Friendly Suggestion to Certain Ultra-Leftists; New International, July 1938.)
Automatic relation?
Continuing the polemic, comrade Arslan writes: “In addition, there is no automatic relation between Russia’s defeat and emergence of a revolutionary situation in Russia.” In Bodart’s contribution this “automatic relation” does not exist. What he raises is a possibility: “The defeat of Russia would be a revolutionary triumph that would invigorate the Russian labor movement and all the nationalities oppressed by Russia, beginning with the Ukrainian people.” (emphasis is mine).
That said, it is valid to consider the eventuality of a strengthening of the Russian workers’ and popular movement in the case of Putin’s defeat. The Russian president has been in power for more than 20 years. With an iron fist, he has liquidated independent unions, repressed all kinds of protest movements, prosecuted and imprisoned social activists. By enriching the oligarchy to the detriment of the people, he has also beheaded the political opposition and persecuted the left. Given this, how is it not licit to state that a defeat of Putin would radically change the situation of the mass movement? Defining the present and proposing possible perspectives, without being diluted in them, is important for building a revolutionary organization in Russia, taking advantage of the opportunities that reality offers, even more so in countries where there have been dictatorships for decades. Disregarding these concerns is an indicator of little interest in construction and much in propagandism.
Self-determination: only for eastern and southern Ukraine and without the withdrawal of the invading troops?
Self-determination also appears in debate. The article says: “we must defend the right to self-determination of predominantly Russian-speaking eastern and southern Ukraine, including Crimea.” We defend the self-determination of the whole of Ukraine, the first requirement of which is the withdrawal of invading troops. And defend the right to self-determination of Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea. In the context of war, it is not a minor issue to address this issue. In those territories, the first step on the way to a process of self-determination is also the defeat of Russia and the withdrawal of its troops. It is not the only question to be clarified: self-determination will also be a struggle against the Ukrainian regime and Zelensky, who have never been open to this elementary right, for which the key will be the mobilization that opens a democratic process for the peoples to decide. They did not even comply with holding elections in those territories. Posing the “self-determination of eastern and southern Ukraine” in the abstract, without explaining how and when is a propagandistic position that, applied concretely only in general today, would mean recognizing the self-proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk and therefore applying defeatism to the resistance against the occupation.
Analyzing phenomena is not sympathizing with them
In his contribution to the debate, comrade Bodart dwells on the different types of existing nationalisms, including the Ukrainian one under the actions of Stalinism, the extreme right, etc. He even addresses historical positions and theoretical approaches that are part of the heritage of the Bolsheviks and Trotskyism. These are issues related to the analysis and characterization of nationalisms. You can agree or disagree with them and debate it, but it is wrong to confuse the analysis and characterization of a phenomenon with the policy towards it. And this is precisely what Comrade Arslan does when he states: “The presence of a certain sympathy for Ukrainian nationalism is clearly perceived in Comrade Alejandro’s article.” For Comrade Arslan, to refer to a phenomenon is to have sympathy for it. It can only be taken as a departure from the basic tools of Marxism or as a provocation.
No revolutionary organization can ignore the contradictions of nationalism and its influence on the mass movement throughout history. Unless they are only propagandists influenced by the weight of the oppressive nationalism of their own country, like the one developing in Turkey. Comrade Bodart’s text does not express sympathy for nationalism, but a Leninist policy to combat it: “As Lenin correctly explained, the profoundly reactionary nationalism of the masses of the oppressor nations is not the same as the nationalism of the oppressed nations, which is more contradictory, since it expresses a commitment to the struggle for their national liberation. Being internationalists, we must understand this phenomenon, not allow it to be capitalized only by the right, fighting the right for influence among the masses and their most militant vanguard, showing them in practice that we are and will be in the front line of combat in the struggle for national liberation against all kinds of external oppression. Only in this way will we be able to have a hearing and gain authority to develop our entire program, which of course does not end there but is combined with the tasks that lead us to economic and social change, to a workers’ government that gives birth to true socialism.”
We fight against nationalism in all its variants, against the nationalism of oppressor nations, which is openly reactionary, and the nationalism of oppressed nations, which, on the basis of some demands for national liberation, present more contradictions. As internationalists, we compete with the nationalists for both the vanguard and the mass movement, as militants against external oppression, which is part of the same struggle for a workers’ government and for socialism.
From “revolutionary defense” to underground propaganda
In reference to what should be done in the war, comrade Arslan writes: “The position of the Ukrainian revolutionaries is revolutionary defense… establishing their own zones of armed control.” And “tell the masses, as widely as possible, how the pro-US and pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs made Ukraine a vassal of the imperialist powers, and to learn the lessons of the recent history of Ukraine.”
Unfortunately, neither in Ukraine nor anywhere in the world is there a revolutionary and socialist leadership recognized massively by the workers’ movement. Ukraine is invaded, the civilian population is being killed, there is house-to-house fighting, and the population is resisting under a bourgeois leadership. In the midst of this reality, comrade Arslan proposes to the revolutionaries: to put aside being part of the resistance because there are no revolutionary defense battalions. If there were, the objective that he sets for them is not to fight the invading army but to occupy and control liberated areas, under their own military command. It would be a new appearance of the “crazy soldier” shooting in all directions. The revolutionaries should complement their activity by going to the gates of some carefully selected factories, looking for the workers who are against Putin and Zelensky alike, and making an appointment with them to explain to them that their first task is not to defend their houses and lives, but take some time to reflect and draw conclusions about their recent political past, to realize who their real enemies are. It is a mistaken and propagandistic orientation that, taken to the concrete field, would leave the cause against the invasion in the hands of the Nazi and nationalist sectors that intervene in the front line of combat.
Finally, comrade Arslan recognizes that there are no conditions for the formation of revolutionary defense battalions and then he proposes to the Ukrainian revolutionaries that they “should form organizational structures suitable for their own powers… Today, opposition to the regime in Kiev is not allowed to operate legally. Therefore, even under illegal conditions, there must be ways to meet those sectors of the working class who do not sympathize with Putin and the nationalist bourgeois in Kiev.”
What would be the forms of organization “suitable for their own powers?” It is left to the imagination. What is certain is that it is aimed at wasting the limited opportunities for freedom that exist due to the war and going underground, that is, to non-public activity. It would mean telling our comrades to quit risking themselves publicly by rejecting Zelensky’s anti-worker policies as they are now doing and telling those who are heroically fighting the aggressor to give up the fight, leaving workers and youth at the mercy of the right. Furthermore, what a strange orientation to propose organizational clandestinity in Ukraine and not to mention it for Russia, where there is a real witch hunt against opponents of the war. Does the comrade think that the Putin regime has justifications, as opposed to the “Ukrainian Nazi regime?” In a war, the margins propagandism are narrowed to the extreme.
Surely, the democratic debate and joint intervention in the war and in the class struggle will shed light on the correct analyses, characterizations, politics and orientation of the revolutionary socialists. In the ISL we have to debate everything and intervene as a single internationalist fist, distancing ourselves from sectarianism, opportunism and propagandism.